What constitutes a prosecutor's failure to add a superseding assault charge to the original assault charge?

Prosecutorial inaction in failing to add these charges and bring them to readiness with the original charge (including advising defendant of them and affording defendant an opportunity to conduct, inter alia, discovery and motion practice with respect to them) before the eve of trial constitutes a prosecutorially-created insurmountable impediment to commencement of trial, see People v. McKenna, 76 N.Y.2d 59, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d 911 (1990) (post-readiness delay in providing minutes required for trial).

An impermissible "tolling" or "supplementation", People v. Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d at 240, 501 N.Y.S.2d at 795, 492 N.E.2d at 1211, of the 30.30 period would occur if the prosecutor were allowed to claim to be ready for trial while being unwilling to proceed to trial until subsequently added charges could simultaneously be tried.

Examination of the facts in the case at bar leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the only statement of readiness in this [154 Misc.2d 843] case which could be substantiated was the one which occurred on March 31, 1992, when the prosecutor filed the superseding assault charge and the added weapons possessions charges. See People v. Howe (n.o.r.), 116 A.D.2d 990, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1013 (4th Dep't 1986) (concurrence of Green, J. opines that possibility of "readiness" statement being "sham" is increased where prosecutor states "ready" at arraignment before responding to discovery).