Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contentions, the court properly charged them with a period of time which elapsed between the dismissal of an earlier indictment and the defendant's subsequent arraignment on a superseding indictment (People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 211-212; People v. Palacios, 79 N.Y.2d 897; People v Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930).
The court also properly declined to exclude a period of delay which occurred after the People, without excuse, failed to produce the pro se defendant for a scheduled Wade hearing. Further, we reject the People's assertions that under the circumstances presented, the defendant's legal advisor could permissibly waive the defendant's right to be present at the Wade hearing (see, People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450; People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656; People v. Anderson, 16 N.Y.2d 282; see also, People v. Jones, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 543).
We have reviewed the People's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.