88 A.D.3d 534
N.Y. App. Div.
2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ANGELO RIVERA, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

931 NYS2d 215

The court properly denied defendant‘s speedy trial motion. Defendant did not preserve his claim that the adjournment following the court‘s decision to order a hearing on defendant‘s suppression motion should have been charged to the People (see People v Beasley, 16 NY3d 289, 292 [2011]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; People v Davis, 80 AD3d 494 [2011]; People v Green, 90 AD2d 705 [1982], lv denied 58 NY2d 784 [1982]). This determination renders the excludability of the remaining challenged period academic. In any event, the other challenged period was properly excluded due to the unavailability of a principal prosecution witness for medical reasons (CPL 30.30 [4] [g]; People v Alcequier, 15 AD3d 162, 163 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.