Although defendant's motion purported to be based in part on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, it consisted exclusively of a claim under CPL 30.30, a ground waived by his guilty plea, and it thus gave the court no opportunity to weigh the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442). Therefore, defendant failed to preserve his constitutional claim (see People v. Rowe, 244 A.D.2d 295, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 930), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find, after analyzing the relevant factors, that defendant has not established a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, particularly in light of the clear evidence that he took steps in an attempt to avoid apprehension.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.