Opinion
April 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within the statutory time period (see, CPL 30.30 [a]). The defendant claims that the court improperly excluded two substantial periods in its computation of time chargeable to the People: (1) October 11, 1985, to March 24, 1986, during which the defendant was detained in the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Facility on a separate indictment (167 days), and (2) March 25, 1986, until October 16, 1986, during which the defendant was detained in Bellevue Hospital prior to his appearance in the Supreme Court, Queens County (206 days). We disagree.
When a defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds specified in CPL 30.30, the burden of proving that certain time periods should be excluded falls upon the People (see, People v. Santos, 68 N.Y.2d 859, 861; People v. Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333, 349). Upon our review of the record, we find that the People met their burden of establishing the unavailability of the defendant during the contested periods due to his successive detentions in the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Facility and Bellevue Hospital. Thus, his presence for trial could not be obtained by due diligence (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; cf., People v. Goodman, 41 N.Y.2d 888; People v. Martin, 142 A.D.2d 737; People v. Pressley, 115 A.D.2d 228). Accordingly, the trial court properly excluded these periods in its computation of the time chargeable to the People. Since the remainder of time attributable to the People was well within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, the defendant was not entitled to dismissal.
The defendant's remaining contention similarly lacks merit. There was no impropriety in the trial court's limitation on the consultations between the defense counsel and his expert medical witness (see, People v. Narayan, 58 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Smith, 111 A.D.2d 883). Moreover, there was no showing that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by these rulings. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.