Defendant's speedy trial arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Defendant's motion merely cited the length of the delay, without elaboration, and when the People identified the exclusions upon which they intended to rely, defendant did not respond, and thus failed to identify any legal or factual impediments to the use of those exclusions ( People v. Goode, 87 N.Y.2d 1045, 1047). Were we to review these claims, we would find that the motion was properly denied.
We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the non-inclusory concurrent count ( see People v. Spence, 290 A.D.2d 223, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Kulakov, 278 A.D.2d 519, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 785).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.