Opinion
April 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment claiming a statutory speedy trial violation was properly denied. This action was commenced by the filing of the indictment for absconding from a work release facility and not by the detainer warrant that was lodged almost five months earlier (CPL 1.20; 100.05, 100.10; People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 356). We see no reason to go beyond the explicit statutory language defining commencement of an action. Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim, based largely on the above-mentioned five-month delay, is without merit. The factors set forth in People v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442) weigh overwhelmingly in favor of the People.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.