Ordered that the judgments are 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 Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22). 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 speedy trial. In this regard, we note that, although there was a delay in excess of 16 years, much of the delay resulted from the defendant's deliberate avoidance of apprehension (see, People v Tulloch, 179 A.D.2d 794). Moreover, there was no extended period of pretrial 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).
Furthermore, the defendant effectively waived his right to appellate review of his statutory speedy trial claim (CPL 30.30) and his sentences (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1; People v Sharcoff, 137 A.D.2d 567). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.