People v. Zerbo, 83 N.Y.2d 903 (1994)
Under CPL 460.10, the time period for filing a notice of appeal commences only after the prevailing party serves a copy of the order on the other party.
Summary
This case addresses whether service by the prevailing party is necessary to trigger the time period for the other party to file an appeal under CPL 460.10. The Court of Appeals holds that it is, requiring prevailing party service to commence the appeal period. In this case, the trial court dismissed an indictment against the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that because there was no evidence of service of the trial court’s order on the People, the People’s appeal to the Appellate Division was timely, even though filed more than 30 days after the order.
Facts
A Grand Jury indicted the defendant for criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the evidence before the Grand Jury legally insufficient because no evidence was presented regarding the defendant’s possession or lack of possession of a license for the weapon.
Procedural History
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the People’s appeal to the Appellate Division was untimely.
Issue(s)
Whether, under CPL 460.10, service by the prevailing party (here, the defendant at the trial level) is required to commence the time period for the other party (here, the People) to take an appeal.
Holding
Yes, because CPL 460.10(1)(a) requires service of the order by the prevailing party to commence the time period for filing a notice of appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals interpreted CPL 460.10(1)(a), which states that a party seeking to appeal from an order of a criminal court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after service upon such party of a copy of the order. The court construed this provision to require prevailing party service in order to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal, citing People v. Wooley, 40 N.Y.2d 699. Because there was no evidence presented as to when, or even if, the defendant (the prevailing party in the trial court) served the order on the People, the court concluded that the People’s notice of appeal was timely, as the 30-day period was never triggered. The court emphasized that without evidence of service by the prevailing party, the appellate timeline does not begin. The court noted, “We construe this provision to require prevailing party service in order to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal.” This interpretation ensures that the appealing party has clear notice of the order before the appeal period begins.