Opinion
June 8, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) was properly denied. As the defendant correctly contends, the hearing court improperly excluded from the time chargeable to the People a period of 13 days that a police detective, who did not testify at the trial, was on vacation (see, People v Jones, 68 N.Y.2d 717). However, the court erred by including the 26-day period which the People took to respond to the defendant's discovery demand (demand to produce) (see, CPL 30.30 [a]; People v Wood, 115 A.D.2d 834). The People anticipated that they would obtain some of the requested information from another detective; however, he was in a coma at the time and he suddenly passed away. Thus, the delay in responding to the defendant's request for discovery was not unreasonable and should not have been charged to the People. By including the 13-day period and excluding the 26-day period from the time chargeable to the People, the People were ready to proceed to trial well within the statutory period.
We further find that while the testimony of a witness to the effect that she had been shown the defendant's photograph by a police officer might have given rise to the inference that the defendant had a prior criminal record, any error in this regard must be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, which, inter alia, included his own confession (see, People v Norman, 127 A.D.2d 798).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.