Opinion
January 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the People were ready for trial within six months of the filing of the felony complaint (see, CPL 1.20; 30.30 [1] [a]; [4] [b], [f], [g]; People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 207, n 3; People v Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 614-615; People v. Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d 236, 239; People v. Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37, 43; People v. Johnson, 191 A.D.2d 709; People v. Muhanimac, 181 A.D.2d 464, 465; People v Chang, 160 A.D.2d 469; People v. Fluellen, 160 A.D.2d 219; People v. Jason, 158 A.D.2d 337; People v. LoPizzo, 151 A.D.2d 614, 615).
The defendant's claim of prejudice as a result of the Supreme Court's conduct at trial is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 887-888; People v. Du Boulay, 140 A.D.2d 707; People v. Aponti, 122 A.D.2d 271, 272). In any event, his claim is without merit.
Based upon our review of the record, we find that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 229; People v Rodriguez, 132 A.D.2d 682, 683; People v. De Rosa, 118 A.D.2d 721, 722). To the extent that the defendant raises issues concerning his representation which are dehors the record, they are not reviewable on this appeal (see, People v. Neal, 205 A.D.2d 711; People v. Yancy, 189 A.D.2d 793).
Finally, the defendant's sentence is not excessive. Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.