Opinion
March 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The People must be given a reasonable time in which to answer a defendant's motion to inspect and dismiss Grand Jury minutes pursuant to CPL 210.30, and such reasonable time is not chargeable to the People (People v. Sutton, 199 A.D.2d 878, 880). The 14 days it took for the People to respond in the instant case was reasonable and cannot be deemed to have risen to the level of prosecutorial inaction (see, e.g., People v. Delgado, 209 A.D.2d 218; cf., People v. Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409, 413-414). Accordingly, the People were chargeable, as conceded, with only 182 days of delay, which is within the prescribed statutory period in this case.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment during the trial for the purpose of locating a witness. The defendant failed to establish the identity or materiality of the witness, that he exercised sufficient diligence in attempting to produce his witness, or that he would be able to produce the witness if his request was granted (see, People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476; People v. Singleton 41 N.Y.2d 402; People v. Roberts, 208 A.D.2d 410; People v. Moore, 206 A.D.2d 391).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 887; People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 54-56; People v. Thompson, 211 A.D.2d 651; People v. Wilson, 209 A.D.2d 654), or without merit (see, Niles v. State of New York, 201 A.D.2d 774, 777). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.