To the extent that defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim rests on factual assertions contained in his unsuccessfulCPL 440.10 motion, those assertions are not properly before this Court because leave to appeal was denied (see, People v. Williams, 266 A.D.2d 97 [Nov 18, 1999], 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11678). On the totality of the existing record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). Trial counsel's failure to move for dismissal of the indictment based on preindictment delay does not require a finding of ineffectiveness, since defendant has not established that such a motion had any likelihood of success (see, People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442). While the delay was lengthy, the crime was extremely serious, defendant was not incarcerated on this charge during the period in question, and there is no evidence of bad faith or prejudice.
Motion seeking leave to strike reply brief denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.