Listen to this article
A criminal court judge in the Bronx dismissed a misdemeanor complaint because the prosecution’s declaration of readiness for trial missed the deadline by seconds.
The defendant was charged with a class A misdemeanor in a complaint filed on Nov. 28, 2025. The prosecution was required to declare readiness within 90 days, ending Feb. 26.
The prosecution intended to declare readiness on time, and started the filing process using court’s Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS) some time before midnight.
According to the prosecution, they pressed “send documents” at 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 26, but the EDDS system did not fully process the submission for another 12 seconds, pushing official acknowledgement of their filing past 12 a.m., on Feb. 27.
As a result, the supporting deposition, certificate of compliance (COC), and statement of readiness all include EDDS headers of “2/27/2026 12:00 AM.”
The EDDS receipt mailed to the People says: “On 02/27/2026, the EDDS system received the documents listed below,” with each document having a “received date” of Feb. 27.
Young moved to dismiss, contending that the prosecution was not ready within the 90-day period.
The prosecution argued that because they submitted their documents before midnight, they should receive the benefit of the Feb. 26 filing date even though the EDDS system delayed completion of the transaction until 12 a.m. on the 91st day.
Under General Construction Law Section 19: “A calendar day includes the time from midnight to midnight.” However, the General Construction Law does not define midnight, Judge David L. Goodwin noted.
“Some decisions make reference to a day beginning at 12:01 a.m., although not generally where that distinction would be meaningful,” he wrote.
“To define the Section 19 reference to ‘midnight’ as including the entire post-midnight minute in the previous day is both counterintuitive and against common usage,” he wrote.
“An interpretation that hews much closer to common usage would deem a new day to begin the instant after midnight of the preceding day, meaning the moment after the clock strikes 12 a.m.,” Goodwin wrote.
“Plenty of courts take this view. … So will this one, at least for the purposes of this decision and in light of the prosecution’s position,” he wrote.
“Thus, because the People acknowledge that filing was complete some moments after midnight … their submission is facially late,” he ruled.
The prosecution argued that they should not be penalized for the 12 seconds of lag between the time they pushed “send documents” on EDDS at 11:59 p.m. and the subsequent acknowledgment of their submission at 12 a.m.
“In the People’s view, they should receive the benefit of the earlier filing time, which fell just before the deadline. But the People do not cite any authority in support of this argument. And at least without more marshaled in its favor, the argument does not persuade,” Goodwin found.
“The People cannot specify when delivery actually occurred in those 12 seconds, let alone argue with any confidence that the system’s acknowledgment of their filing did not mark the moment that filing and delivery were truly complete,” he wrote.
“The People do not provide any reason, or workable broader rule, that would credit the earlier filing time. They cannot specify when the documents were actually delivered to the court, or offer any assurance that the documents were “filed” at a specific, articulable point between the pressing of the “send documents” button and EDDS’s final acknowledgment,” Goodwin ruled.
“Accordingly, because the People did not become ready in time, dismissal is required.”
[email protected] / (585) 232-20235