Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the 40 days which elapsed while the Supreme Court considered the People's motion to reargue dismissal of the first indictment was excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a) (see, People v. Chapman, 185 A.D.2d 892, 892-893; People v. Pomales, 159 A.D.2d 451, 451-452). Since the time chargeable to the People did not exceed six months, the court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.
The court also properly declined to suppress the complainant's identification testimony. The lineup procedure was neither impermissibly suggestive (see, People v. Ahmed, 173 A.D.2d 546, 547; see also, People v. Harvall, 196 A.D.2d 553, 554) nor tainted by the officers' statements (see, People v. Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412).
The sentence imposed was neither excessive nor unduly harsh (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.