Opinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was not denied her statutory right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.30 [a]). The People established that, from the commencement of the criminal action on January 30, 1992 until the arraignment on October 22, 1992, defendant's location was unknown and could not be determined by due diligence (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; People v Delaronde, 201 A.D.2d 846). Thus, that period of delay is excludable from the period within which the People were required to be ready for trial (see, CPL 30.30 [c]). Because only 62 days of delay preceding the announcement of readiness are chargeable to the People, and defendant does not rely on any periods of postreadiness delay, County Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.
The expanded charge on identification evidence was proper; the court was not required to give the more detailed charge requested by defense counsel (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; 1 CJI[NY] 10.01). The court properly permitted the People to introduce defendant's passport along with expert testimony that four stamps on the passport were counterfeit. That evidence was admissible to rebut defendant's alibi (see generally, People v Knight, 80 N.Y.2d 845, 847; People v Olsen, 100 Misc.2d 947, 949). The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is based upon matters outside the record and is not subject to review on direct appeal (see, People v Simmons, 221 A.D.2d 994; People v Ford, 184 A.D.2d 1013, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 929).