Opinion
September 18, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen and Harold Beeler, JJ.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, his right to a speedy trial was not violated. Three of the four postreadiness periods that he claims should be charged to the People were properly excluded. The period from March 8 to 9, 1993 was excludable because the prosecutor's unavailability resulted from defendant's substitution of counsel, and the period from November 1 to 16, 1993 was likewise excludable because that period merely constituted an extension of an adjournment requested by defense at a time when the People continued to be ready and when neither defense counsel nor defendant was present ( see, People v Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 536). The period from January 20 to 27, 1994 was excludable because it was part of a reasonable two-week adjournment after the court's denial of defendant's first speedy trial motion ( see, People v. Ali, 195 A.D.2d 368, 369, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 804). The record fails to support defendant's contention that only a one-week adjournment was justified by the People and found excludable by the original motion court. While we find that the court improperly excluded the period from November 17 to 22, 1993 ( see, People v. Reid, 214 A.D.2d 396, 397; People v. Bissereth, 194 A.D.2d 317, 318, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 804), the court improperly included the period from October 7 to 12, 1993 since the record indicates that defense counsel consented to that adjournment. Therefore, the total number of days chargeable to the People was 178, six days less than the number warranting dismissal of the indictment.
The record amply supports the trial court's rejection, as pretextual, of defendant's purportedly race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge ( see, People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 936).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.