Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Inasmuch as the defendant's moving papers, on their face, did not show the existence of an unexcused delay greater than six months, the Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.30, [4] [a], [d]; People v Philip, 205 A.D.2d 714). Moreover, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial; specifically that he suffered any prejudice resulting from the delay (see, Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530; People v Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442; People v Penna, 203 A.D.2d 392).
The record demonstrates that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see also, People v Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973). Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, on the eve of trial, for an adjournment to retain new counsel. Considering the defendant's previous indications of his dissatisfaction with counsel, the court reasonably concluded that the defendant had ample time to retain new counsel and that his motion was a dilatory tactic (see, People v Erber, 210 A.D.2d 250; People v Gloster, 175 A.D.2d 258, 260).
Any error regarding the prosecutor's opening and summation comments was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Gagne, 129 A.D.2d 808, 811).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.