Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly denied the defendant's pro se motion to renew and/or reargue a previously-denied motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see, CPL 30.20). The defendant was represented by counsel at the time that he made his pro se motion. Such a defendant is not entitled to a "right to hybrid representation" by which he simultaneously acts pro se (People v White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, 477, cert denied 493 U.S. 859; see, People v Mirenda, 57 N.Y.2d 261). In any event, after considering the five factors enumerated by the Court of Appeals in determining a constitutional speedy trial motion, we find that the defendant's motion was without merit (see, People v Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445). A significant portion of the delay in question was caused by the defendant's trial on unrelated criminal charges, and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice which would warrant a reversal of his conviction for these serious crimes (see, People v Rossi, 210 A.D.2d 511; People v Quiroz, 192 A.D.2d 730).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.