Opinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly concluded that the People had effectively communicated their readiness for trial on May 8, 1989, within the six-month time period set forth in CPL 30.30 (see, People v Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331; see also, People v. Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 671), a finding of fact which we decline to disturb.
The court also properly charged the People for only one additional day of post-readiness delay caused by the unavailability of their trial assistant on June 25, 1990. Unlike the facts of People v. Jones ( 68 N.Y.2d 717), the People here indicated that they had a substitute trial assistant available for the next day. The court found that the subsequent delay after June 25 was caused by its own attendance at a judicial seminar, a period that it properly refused to charge against the People (see, People v Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201; People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529). Under the circumstances, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that she did not receive a speedy trial was properly denied.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.