Opinion
April 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).
Defendant was not deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial since less than 183 days were chargeable to the People. Some excludable periods are the 29-day adjournment from the decision on defendant's omnibus motion on September 25, 1991 until October 24, 1991, the scheduled hearing and trial date, as a reasonable period for the People to prepare for trial ( People v. Greene, 223 A.D.2d 474); the 5-day adjournment from February 14, 1992 until February 19, 1992, as "post-readiness delay attributable to defendant's lack of representation through no fault of the court" ( People v. Reid, 214 A.D.2d 396, 397); and the 26-day period from April 23, 1992 to May 19, 1992, during which the arresting officer suffered from a broken ankle, as an exceptional circumstance under CPL 30.30 (4) (g) ( People v Celestino, 201 A.D.2d 91, 95). Furthermore, in the absence of any transcript of the May 19, 1992 proceedings, the prosecutor's unrefuted affirmation in opposition to defendant's speedy trial motion provided a sufficient record to support the People's claim that the adjournment to June 15, 1992 was a defense request ( supra, at 94-95; People v. Nevitt, 209 A.D.2d 341, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 865).
The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor briefly mentioned in his opening statement that defendant had been returned on a bench warrant after his re-arrest for farebeating. The trial court's prompt, curative instruction that the jury "expunge" the reference to the arrest from their minds was "sufficient to alleviate any possible prejudice to defendant" ( People v. Owens, 214 A.D.2d 480, 481, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 799).
The precinct showup shortly after defendant's arrest was confirmatory ( People v. Serrano, 207 A.D.2d 676, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1015). The complainant had observed defendant on several occasions after the robbery, spontaneously pointed him out to the police after they responded to his second telephone call informing them that he had seen defendant, and told them that he was positive that defendant had robbed him.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.