Opinion
January 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Martin Marcus, J., Ira Globerman, J.
The Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds since the People announced their readiness for trial within six months or 181 days, plus any periods of excludable time (CPL 30.30 [a]; [3] [b]; [4]; People v Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201). Since defendant's challenge to some 120 days of delay is being raised for the first time on appeal, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review ( People v Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 77-78; People v Majette, 210 A.D.2d 145), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant's contention with respect to this time period, as well as to other additional periods of delay, is without merit. The People are only chargeable with the time period beginning with defendant's arraignment, and not his arrest ( People v Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d 236, 239). Although defendant asserts that certain time periods in which the court adjourned the matter sua sponte should have been charged to the People where, as here, the People have already announced their readiness for trial, the period of delay due to the unavailability of the court is not chargeable to the People ( People v Brown, 195 A.D.2d 310, 311, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 891). Moreover, adjournments for more than the time period requested by the People are not chargeable to them in post-readiness cases ( People v Reid, 214 A.D.2d 396, 397; People v Urraea, 214 A.D.2d 378).
Since defendant challenged the testimony of the arresting officer on the ground of improper bolstering, his present contention that the testimony constituted impermissible hearsay and violated his right of confrontation has not been preserved for this Court's review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733, 734), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, were we to review, we would find it without merit since the testimony served to provide relevant background information concerning defendant's arrest ( see, People v Morgan, 193 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1077).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.