An investigator further testified that he observed the arrival of defendant and other coconspirators at the meeting site, as well as the subsequent arrival of the customer and activity consistent with the agreed-upon cocaine sale. Although circumstantial, this evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against defendant (see People v. Hudson, 90 A.D.3d 437, 438, 933 N.Y.S.2d 674 [2011], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 357, 973 N.E.2d 767 [2012] ; People v. Silva, 237 A.D.2d 216, 216, 655 N.Y.S.2d 936 [1997], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100, 660 N.Y.S.2d 394, 682 N.E.2d 995 [1997] ). An investigator testified at trial with regard to the recorded telephone calls and stated that he recognized defendant's voice from their prior interactions.

Defendant's speedy trial motions were properly denied. The August 24, 1993 adjournment was excludable, notwithstanding the unavailability of minutes of that adjournment, because the totality of the record, including the submissions on the motion (see, People v. Silva, 237 A.D.2d 216, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100;People v. Chambers, 226 A.D.2d 284, lv denied 981), establish that the adjournment was necessitated by the arresting officer's injury. The minutes of the September 21, 1993 adjournment establish that it was at the request or with the consent of defendant. The entire December 16, 1993 adjournment represented a reasonable period of delay following motion practice (see, People v. Hairston, 242 A.D.2d 466, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 892).

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in replacing an absent juror with the first alternate juror, on the ground that the absent juror was unavailable for continued jury service, after the court had ascertained that the absent juror's attendance at her father's out-of-State funeral would result in her absence from the State for a six-day period, during which it was then contemplated that the trial proceedings would be completed ( People v. Silva, 237 A.D.2d 216, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100). After sufficient inquiry, the court properly exercised its discretion in excluding from the proceedings one spectator whose behavior, as reported to the court by a court officer who had personally observed that behavior, posed a threat to the orderly conduct of the trial ( United States ex rel. Orlando v. Fay, 350 F.2d 967, 971, cert denied sub nom. Orlando v. Follette, 384 U.S. 1008). The ejection was based on the actual misconduct of the spectator in open court and the court's responsibility to maintain order ( see, Matter of Katz v. Murtagh, 28 N.Y.2d 234, 240).