![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/play-icon.png\"\/){kind=icon}
Listen to this article<\/p>\n Listen to this article<\/p>\n
A criminal court judge in the Bronx dismissed a misdemeanor complaint<\/a> because the prosecution\u2019s declaration of readiness<\/a> for trial missed the deadline by seconds.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The prosecution intended to declare readiness on time, and started the filing process using court\u2019s Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS) some time before midnight.<\/p>\n According to the prosecution, they pressed \u201csend documents\u201d 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.<\/p>\n As a result, the supporting deposition, certificate of compliance (COC), and statement of readiness all include EDDS headers of \u201c2\/27\/2026 12:00 AM.\u201d<\/p>\n The EDDS receipt mailed to the People says: \u201cOn 02\/27\/2026, the EDDS system received the documents listed below,\u201d with each document having a \u201creceived date\u201d of Feb. 27.<\/p>\n Young moved to dismiss, contending that the prosecution was not ready within the 90-day period.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Under General Construction Law Section 19: \u201cA calendar day includes the time from midnight to midnight.\u201d However, the General Construction Law does not define midnight, Judge David L. Goodwin noted.<\/p>\n \u201cSome decisions make reference to a day beginning at 12:01 a.m., although not generally where that distinction would be meaningful,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cTo define the Section 19 reference to \u2018midnight\u2019 as including the entire post-midnight minute in the previous day is both counterintuitive and against common usage,\u201d he\u00a0 wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cAn 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.,\u201d Goodwin wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cPlenty of courts take this view. \u2026 So will this one, at least for the purposes of this decision and in light of the prosecution\u2019s position,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cThus, because the People acknowledge that filing was complete some moments after midnight \u2026 their submission is facially late,\u201d he ruled.<\/p>\n The prosecution argued that they should not be penalized for the 12 seconds of lag between the time they pushed \u201csend documents\u201d on EDDS at 11:59 p.m. and the subsequent acknowledgment of their submission at 12 a.m.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the People\u2019s 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,\u201d Goodwin found.<\/p>\n \u201cThe People cannot specify when delivery actually occurred in those 12 seconds, let alone argue with any confidence that the system\u2019s acknowledgment of their filing did not mark the moment that filing and delivery were truly complete,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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 \u201cfiled\u201d at a specific, articulable point between the pressing of the \u201csend documents\u201d button and EDDS\u2019s final acknowledgment,\u201d Goodwin ruled.<\/p>\n \u201cAccordingly, because the People did not become ready in time, dismissal is required.\u201d<\/p>\n