PEOPLE v. GREEN (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1] ).   Defendant abandoned his motion seeking dismissal of the indictment based on the alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.20 and 30.30 when he proceeded to trial despite the failure of Supreme Court to rule on his motion (see People v. Sommerville, 6 A.D.3d 1232, 775 N.Y.S.2d 654, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 648, 782 N.Y.S.2d 419, 816 N.E.2d 209;  People v. Rodriguez, 187 A.D.2d 291, 292, 589 N.Y.S.2d 873).   In addition, he thereby failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the motion should have been granted (see Sommerville, 6 A.D.3d at 1232-1233, 775 N.Y.S.2d 654;  Rodriguez, 187 A.D.2d at 292, 589 N.Y.S.2d 873).   The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was an active participant in the robbery (see People v. Knight, 192 A.D.2d 676, 597 N.Y.S.2d 94, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1075, 601 N.Y.S.2d 594, 619 N.E.2d 672).   Also contrary to the contentions of defendant, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), and the record establishes that he received meaningful representation (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: