Since the adjournment on July 7, 1994 occurred on the 42nd day after appellant's initial appearance on May 26, 1994, the presentment agency did not have to show good cause for the adjournment to August 8, 1994 ( Matter of James T., 220 A.D.2d 352). In any event, there was good cause since appellant failed to appear for his fact-finding hearing on July 7, 1994 ( Matter of Sean B., 209 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 810).
The record also demonstrates that although not specified by the court, special circumstances existed for adjournments on August 8, 1994, in light of the presentment agency's efforts to extradite appellant from Philadelphia; on August 19, 1994, when appellant was involuntarily returned on the warrant and a superseding petition was filed; and on August 23, 1994, when, at the conclusion of the probable cause hearing, and in response to the court's request for a court date, counsel asked for the matter to be adjourned to August 29, 1994 for the fact-finding hearing ( Matter of Jamar A., 86 N.Y.2d 387). Moreover, the facsimile copy of the original was admitted into evidence.
The filing of a copy of the laboratory analysis report rather than the original report itself did not render the petition jurisdictionally defective (CPLR 2101 [e]; People v. Guzman, 151 Misc.2d 289, 292-294).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.