The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion. After a thorough hearing, the court properly determined that the period of 155 days during which the purchasing undercover officer was unavailable due to a family crisis and its tragic conclusion was excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(g) as a delay "occasioned by exceptional circumstances." The evidence established that the People could not have made the officer available at an earlier date ( see People v. Pressley, 115 A.D.2d 228). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining speedy trial arguments.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence was properly denied. There was a proper confirmatory identification by the undercover officer immediately after the drug transaction ( see People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).
Since defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim rests primarily on matters outside the record, it would require a CPL 440.10 motion ( People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998). To the extent that the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion ( see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.