In People v. Sibblies, 22 NY3d 1174, 985 N.Y.S.2d 474, 8 N.E.3d 852 (2014), the People filed an off-calendar statements of readiness (SOR) and subsequently answered not ready on the adjourn date because they were "continuing to investigate and awaiting medical records." Id. at 1176. Chief Judge Lippman, writing for three judges, found that "the People must demonstrate that some exceptional fact or circumstances arose after their declaration of readiness so as to render them presently not ready for trial." Id. at 1178. He found the earlier statement of readiness illusory because the People's need to investigate did not constitute "the type of 'exceptional fact or circumstance' contemplated in CPL 30.30 (3) (b)." Id. at 1179. Justice Graffeo, writing for the other three judges of the Court at the time, took a narrower approach, noting: It is well settled that a statement of readiness made at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock' (People v. England, 84 NY2d 1, 4, 636 N.E.2d 1387, 613 N.Y.S.2d 854 1994). We have explained that the actual readiness requirement will be met unless there is proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position'" (People v. Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 799, 699 N.E.2d 35, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523 [1998]). (Id at 1180.)