Opinion
March 18, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground that he had been deprived of his right to a speedy trial. The record reveals that after the defendant's speedy trial motion was fully submitted, the court asked that the People provide transcripts of the prior proceedings in the matter. In response to the court's request, the People immediately ordered the minutes of the prior proceedings. Although delays subsequently ensued in the ultimate production of the minutes, the Supreme Court properly declined to charge these delays to the People (see, CPL 30.30 [a]). Since the People ordered the minutes upon the court's request and because, as the defendant himself recognizes, the Supreme Court reporters are not within the control of the People, the Trial Judge properly excluded the delay and determined that the People had acted diligently and reasonably in attempting to comply with its request for the minutes (see, People v Lawson, 112 A.D.2d 457, 458; cf., People v Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 585). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v Missirian, 154 A.D.2d 625; People v Erts, 141 A.D.2d 665; People v Seabrook, 126 A.D.2d 583; People v Brown, 113 A.D.2d 812, 813; People v Gaggi, 104 A.D.2d 422). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.