It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated by the 16-month period between the date of his arrest and the entry of his plea ( see generally People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 444-445; People v Manuel, 39 AD3d 1185, 1186, lv denied 9 NY3d 878). The 16-month period primarily was caused by County Court's delay in issuing an order determining defendant's omnibus motion and by court congestion ( see People v Cartledge, 147 AD2d 917, lv denied 74 NY2d 662), and we note in addition that defendant's incarceration during that period of time was attributable in part to unrelated charges ( see People v Jenkins, 2 AD3d 1390).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was not eligible to be sentenced pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA] L 2004, ch 738) because he committed the instant offense on May 6, 2004, prior to the date on which the DLRA became effective ( see People v Utsey 7 NY3d 398, 403; see also People v Moore, 38 AD3d 1313, lv denied 9 NY3d 848). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning his appearance in shackles before the grand jury ( see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163, lv denied 8 NY3d 980; see also People v Winfield, 267 AD2d 486, lv denied 94 NY2d 927, 95 NY2d 806 [2000]), as well as his contention concerning his alleged inability to confer with defense counsel during the grand jury proceeding ( see People v Baker, 294 AD2d 888, 889, lv denied 98 NY2d 708), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]).