Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly concluded that the People had effectively communicated their readiness for trial on May 8, 1989, within the six-month time period set forth in CPL 30.30 (see, People v Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331; see also, People v. Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 671), a finding of fact which we decline to disturb.
The court also properly charged the People for only one additional day of post-readiness delay caused by the unavailability of their trial assistant on June 25, 1990. Unlike the facts of People v. Jones ( 68 N.Y.2d 717), the People here indicated that they had a substitute trial assistant available for the next day. The court found that the subsequent delay after June 25 was caused by its own attendance at a judicial seminar, a period that it properly refused to charge against the People (see, People v Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201; People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529). Under the circumstances, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that she did not receive a speedy trial was properly denied.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.