Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court correctly determined that the People were ready for trial within the statutorily prescribed six-month period from the filing of the felony complaint (see, People v Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37, 43). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly excluded the three-day period from August 31, 1991, to September 3, 1991. This delay was a reasonable period of time which elapsed for the purposes of assigning counsel and was not attributable to the People (see, People v Middlemiss, 198 A.D.2d 755; People v Parker, 186 A.D.2d 593; People v Greene, 134 A.D.2d 612; cf., People v Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201).
On October 29, 1991, the defendant's attorney requested a felony hearing and the matter was adjourned to November 12, 1991 for that purpose. The court properly excluded this period (see, CPL 30.30 [b]).
Where the People make no objection to a CPL 210.30 motion seeking inspection of the Grand Jury minutes, the People's obligation to produce the minutes within a reasonable time begins to run from the date the defendant's CPL 210.30 motion is made (see, People v Harris, 82 N.Y.2d 409). The defendant filed his motion on April 7, 1992. The People consented to the inspection in their response papers dated April 22, 1992, and promptly ordered the Grand Jury minutes. The People received and delivered the minutes to the defendant on or about May 12, 1992. This 35-day period is reasonable under the circumstances and not chargeable to the People. The period between May 13, 1992 and May 20, 1992, during which the court was deciding an issue concerning the Grand Jury minutes was also properly excluded (see, People v Moorehead, 61 N.Y.2d 851; People v Robinson, 171 A.D.2d 475).
Accordingly, the People were ready well within the statutory period and not in violation of CPL 30.30.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that the defendant had knowledge that he possessed 500 milligrams or more of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256; People v Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859; People v Smalls, 208 A.D.2d 778; People v Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.