People v. Riquelme

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. Since defendant did not address the June 5, 2006 adjournment in his motion, his present claim regarding that adjournment is unpreserved (see People v Goode, 87 NY2d 1045 [1996]; People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-80 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. While the court ruled on that period of delay, it did not “expressly decide[ ]” (CPL 470.05 [2]) the particular issue presented on appeal. Moreover, the court’s ruling on that period was not made in response to a protest by a party (see People v Colon, 46 AD3d…