Opinion
April 19, 1996
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Wesley, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contentions of defendant that his arraignment on a special information and the admission of a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test were improper are not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]). County Court's denial of defendant's request for an adjournment of the suppression hearing was within the sound discretion of the court ( see, People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405; see also, People v. Hopkins, 76 N.Y.2d 872, 873). Upon requesting an adjournment to produce a witness, defendant "failed to indicate to the court when, if ever, the witness could be produced" ( People v. Patterson, 177 A.D.2d 1042, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1052).