Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, since the defendant abandoned this issue in the Supreme Court, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Rodriguez, 50 N.Y.2d 553; People v. Morales, 199 A.D.2d 284). In any event, after a consideration of the factors set forth in People v. Taranovich ( 37 N.Y.2d 442), we find the defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial. In this regard, we note that the bulk of the approximately three-year delay from the defendant's arrest to his motion to dismiss the indictment, was due to the defendant's inadequately explained failure to return to court. Moreover, the defendant was charged with serious and violent crimes, there was no extended period of incarceration, and there is no indication that the defense was impaired by reason of the delay (see, People v. Moss, 188 A.D.2d 620). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.