Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Bronx County (Ralph Fabrizio, J.), rendered March 17, 2003, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (two counts), and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM

Judgment of conviction (Ralph Fabrizio,, J.), rendered March 17, 2003, affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion. On September 1, 2000, defendant moved for and was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) pursuant to CPL 170.56(1). Defendant was subsequently arrested on new charges, in violation of the conditions of the adjournment, and incarcerated. He was produced in court on September 15, 2000 on the new charges. The court directed the ACD case to be restored and adjourned "all matters" to October 19, 2000. Inasmuch as the ACD "suspended" all proceedings, we agree that the People were entitled to a reasonable period of time to answer ready for trial. While prosecution on a case "must proceed" upon restoration (see CPL 170.56[2]), it would be unreasonable to expect the People to have been prepared to proceed on September 15, 2000, upon learning that defendant had violated the conditions of the adjournment (see e.g. People v Green, 90 AD2d 705 [1982], lv denied 58 NY2d 784 [1982]). Thus, the 32-day adjournment period from September 15, 2000 to October 19, 2000, which is dispositive of defendant's speedy trial claim, was excludable as a reasonable period of time to allow the People to prepare for trial.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court. [*2]
Decision Date: July 3, 2006