Opinion
December 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, since the defendant abandoned this issue in the Supreme Court, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22). In any event, after a consideration of the factors set forth in People v Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442), we find the defendant was not deprived of his right to speedy trial. In this regard, we note that, although there was a delay in excess of 16 years, much of the delay resulted from the defendant's deliberate avoidance of apprehension (see, People v Tulloch, 179 A.D.2d 794). Moreover, there was no extended period of pretrial incarceration, and there is no indication that the defense was impaired by reason of the delay (see, People v Moss, 188 A.D.2d 620).
Furthermore, the defendant effectively waived his right to appellate review of his statutory speedy trial claim (CPL 30.30) and his sentences (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1; People v Sharcoff, 137 A.D.2d 567). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.