The motion court's summary denial of defendant's pro se speedy trial motion, before the People had an opportunity to respond, was appropriate because the motion was facially insufficient. Since the motion did not address the People's readiness for trial, it lacked factual allegations indicating entitlement to a dismissal of the charges ( see, People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 357; People v. Rodriguez, 210 A.D.2d 116, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 865). In any event, we have reviewed the minutes of the relevant adjournments ( see, People v. Notholt, 242 A.D.2d 251, 253; People v. Rowe, 227 A.D.2d 212, 213, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 993), and find that the time chargeable to the People is well within the statutory maximum of 182 days.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.