Finally, even assuming defendant's motions resulted solely from a prior erroneous ruling that the complaint had been converted, Worley (supra) still precludes the relief he seeks. People v Jones (146 Misc 2d 665 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1989]) granted precisely that relief, attempting to distinguish Worley, and finding a defendant's waiver of speedy trial time ineffective where he made motions on the erroneous premise, through no fault of his own, that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient for trial. Reversing, the Appellate Term explicitly held that Worley precluded that result.
Finally, even assuming defendant's motions resulted solely from a prior erroneous ruling that the complaint had been converted, Worley ( supra) still precludes the relief he seeks. People v. Jones ( 146 Misc.2d 665 [Crim. Ct., Kings County 1989]) granted precisely that relief, attempting to distinguish Worley, and finding a defendant's waiver of speedy trial time ineffective where he made motions on the erroneous premise, through no fault of his own, that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient for trial. Reversing, the Appellate Term explicitly held that Worley precluded that result.
In People v Jones (supra), for example, the Appellate Term reversed where the trial court had held that "any consent by the defendants and subsequent permission by the court was induced by a mistaken belief that a jurisdictionally sufficient information existed * * * [and the] 'consent' adjournment and/or misdemeanor motion practices would not be excludable" while the felony complaint was still pending. ( 146 Misc.2d 665, 669 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1990] [emphasis added].) In rejecting this position, the Appellate Term specifically excluded periods of delay when defense attorney and/or defendant were not present, discovery delay, motion practice, delays to hold pretrial hearing, and adjournments at defendants' requests or with their consent during the pendency of the felony complaint.
30 (1) (e) and 30.30. Previously successful, the defendants suffered a reversal in the Appellate Term, which ordered the reinstatement of the action. (People v Jones, 146 Misc.2d 665, revd 151 Misc.2d 582 [App Term, 2d Dept 1991], lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 921 [Feb. 3, 1992].) In the first place, the defendants naturally recognize that this court will not entertain any reargument of what was decided by the Appellate Term, which decision gave the prosecution an additional 41 days to be ready for trial upon a proper accusatory instrument.