Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he was not denied his right to counsel at the corporeal lineups in which he was positively identified by three of the robbery victims. These lineups occurred on the evening of his arrest, prior to the filing of the felony complaint which commenced the prosecution (CPL 1.20, [17]). Thus, at the time of the lineups, the defendant had no right to counsel (see, People v. Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v. Jones, 140 A.D.2d 372; People v. Aufiero, 139 A.D.2d 656; see also, People v Hernandez, 70 N.Y.2d 833).
Furthermore, the hearing court correctly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictments as he was not deprived of his statutory or constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Nearly all of the preindictment delay was directly attributable to the defendant's repeated requests for adjournments so that plea negotiations could be considered. Thus, this time was properly charged to the defendant (CPL 30.30, [6]; People v. Kopciowski, 68 N.Y.2d 615). Moreover, although the prosecution was not obligated to establish that the defense-requested adjournments prevented the issuance of an indictment (see, People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613; People v Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523), in the instant case the evidence clearly established that the prosecution did in fact delay presentation of this case before a Grand Jury to enable the defendant to seek a satisfactory plea agreement. Additionally, the defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated as the delay was not extensive, was caused primarily by defense-requested adjournments, and did not impair the defense of this prosecution (see, People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442; People v. Williams, 130 A.D.2d 697; People v. Smith, 129 A.D.2d 747, lv dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 896; see also, People v. Williams, 137 A.D.2d 860).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied ___ US ___, 109 S Ct 240; People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.2d 589; People v. Miller, 106 A.D.2d 787; People v. Spencer, 79 Misc.2d 72; People v. Hvizd, 70 Misc.2d 654). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.