Opinion
November 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Renee White, J., Patricia Ann Williams, J.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied since the court properly excluded the fifteen days between March 22 and April 6, 1993 upon the ground that the adjournment was precipitated by the failure of counsel for the codefendant to appear and the need to ascertain whether the codefendant was, in fact, represented by counsel (CPL 30.30 [f]). Without this fifteen day period, there was insufficient includable time to require dismissal. Moreover, the court should have also excluded the period from May 18 to June 9, 1993, wherein the adjournment was explicitly requested by defense counsel.
Defendant's argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct in summation is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (CPL 470.05). In any event, the prosecutor did not mischaracterize the defense in arguing that defense counsel had accused the People's witnesses of lying and therefore, it was not improper for the People to respond by arguing that the witnesses lacked any motive to lie ( see, People v Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 277). Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court's refusal to give a "police witness" charge where the police officers were the only witnesses to testify ( People v Miller, 159 A.D.2d 224, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 739) and the court gave appropriate instructions to the jury on assessing a witness's credibility.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.