PEOPLE v. STANLEY

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The People failed to demonstrate that the 168-day period during which the victim remained in China was excludable since they did not satisfy the due diligence requirement of the statute (see, CPL 30.30[b], 4[g]; People v. Zirpola, 57 N.Y.2d 706; cf., People v. Belgrave, 226 A.D.2d 550). There is no evidence to support the People's contention that the victim traveled to and remained in China to seek medical attention for the injuries she suffered as a result of the defendant's alleged assault (see, People v. Marshall, 91 A.D.2d 900, 901 cf., People v. Martinez, 268 A.D.2d 354; People v. Pharr, 204 A.D.2d 126-127).

Accordingly, the indictment was properly dismissed pursuant to CPL 30.30(1).