Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that his right to a speedy trial was violated. We are satisfied that the documentary proof offered in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 and 30.20 Crim. Proc. demonstrated that between August 17, 1987 and August 29, 1988 the defendant's location was unknown and that he was attempting to avoid prosecution. Accordingly, since the defendant was absent within the meaning of the statute, the People were not required to show "due diligence" in locating the defendant after he failed to appear for a scheduled court date (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; People v Jackson, 142 A.D.2d 597; People v Walker, 133 A.D.2d 2; CPL 210.45 [c]; People v Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214).
We also find no merit to the defendant's contentions that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Finally, the defendant's challenge to the imposition of a mandatory surcharge is premature while he is still incarcerated (see, People v West, 124 Misc.2d 622). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.