Opinion
January 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant contends that the 82-day delay between the close of the trial and the rendering of the verdict was unreasonable and violated his right to a prompt verdict. We find that this claim is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to raise a timely objection to the several adjournments of the day scheduled for the rendition of the verdict (see, People v. Cheswick, 166 A.D.2d 88, affd 78 N.Y.2d 1119; People v Waldron, 162 A.D.2d 485; People v. Woodley, 141 A.D.2d 587; People v. Andrews, 102 A.D.2d 894; cf., People v. Hryn, 144 A.D.2d 961). In any event, the court's delay in announcing its verdict was not unreasonable (see, People v. South, 41 N.Y.2d 451) or prejudicial (cf., People v. O'Brien, 86 Misc.2d 139). The court took time to reconcile the substantially conflicting testimony of seven witnesses, and then to write a four-page decision rather than merely announcing the words "guilty" or "not guilty". Further, the court experienced difficulties scheduling the verdict, as it was engaged in several homicide trials in addition to its normal calendar work. Moreover, the defendant was not in custody during the adjournments and, although he was present in court, he made no protest when the adjournments were granted. Finally, we find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.