Opinion
February 29, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, the defendant's motion is denied, and the indictment is reinstated (see, CPL 460.10 [c]).
A motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (see, CPL 210.45; People v Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200). An oral application, as here, is not sufficient.
In any case, upon a review of the record, we further find that, under the circumstances herein, the defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial (see, People v Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442; People v O'Shaughnessy, 118 A.D.2d 876, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 759). The delay was occasioned almost solely as the result of adjournments by the defendant for motions and for investigation purposes, and for numerous substitutions and reassignments of counsel. There was no evidence of any prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend this case. The slight delay due to the unavailability of the People's only eyewitness would not have, of itself, deprived the defendant of a speedy trial.
We find no merit to the other contentions raised by the defendant. Mollen, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.