Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.).
Defendant's primary contention on appeal is that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to timely move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People failed to afford defendant a reasonable opportunity to testify before the Grand Jury. (See, CPL 190.50.) Any claim of a deprivation of defendant's right to testify before the Grand Jury was waived by defendant's plea of guilty. (People v Rose, 162 A.D.2d 240.)
Similarly, the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing, since counsel's failure to move within the statutory limits was not prejudicial. We note that the trial court considered, and rejected, the motion to dismiss the indictment on the merits, as well as on procedural grounds. In any event, the outcome of these proceedings was not affected, since the entry of the guilty plea waived consideration of the alleged irregularity in the Grand Jury proceedings.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.