As the People concede, the sentence for robbery in the first degree based on Penal Law § 160.15 (1) (causes serious physical injury) must run concurrently with defendant's sentence on the manslaughter conviction, as the injury is the same as to both convictions ( see People v. Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643). However, this does not affect the consecutive sentences imposed for the other two robbery convictions, which are not required to run concurrently with the manslaughter sentence ( see People v. Tanner, 30 NY2d 102, 108; People v. Lewis, 268 AD2d 249, lv denied 95 NY2d 799; People v. Battle, 249 AD2d 116; People v. Hyde, 240 AD2d 849, 851-852, lv denied 91 NY2d 874).
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on preindictment delay ( see People v. Vernace, 96 NY2d 886; People v. Singer, 44 NY2d 241; People v. Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445). There was no factual issue warranting a hearing. Defendant made no showing of prejudice, and did not dispute the People's showing that the investigation proceeded in good faith and that the delay was caused by the need to gather essential evidence ( People v. Brown, 209 AD2d 233, lv denied 85 NY2d 860).
The contentions contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.