The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning identification. The identifying victim had an ample opportunity to observe defendant and provided a detailed description.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. Defendant's appellate arguments on this issue are unpreserved (People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 77-78), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the January 13, 1998 adjournment was properly excluded as time for the People to prepare for the newly ordered hearing (see, CPL 30.30[a];People v. Green, 90 A.D.2d 705, lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 784), and that the remaining period challenged by defendant on appeal was properly excluded as having been requested by the defense (CPL 30.30[b]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.