Under the circumstances presented here it was error for Criminal Term, sua sponte, to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds in disregard of CPL 210.45 (1), which requires that such a motion "must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the [P]eople" (see, People v Sbarra, 55 A.D.2d 545; see also, People v Rodriguez, 45 A.D.2d 41; People v Bess, 73 A.D.2d 971). The basic purpose of this requirement is to provide for a "full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal" (People v Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867).
Even the sparse record provided on this appeal indicates the presence of such factual issues as defendant's use of a false name after his failure to appear for arraignment on the indictment, and whether the People acted with due diligence in compelling his appearance, each of which may require a hearing if defendant's application is pursued.
We have considered defendant's argument that the People can waive the formalities of CPL 210.45, citing People v Jennings ( 69 N.Y.2d 103) and People v Singleton ( 42 N.Y.2d 466). Those decisions involved extensive oral argument upon fully clarified issues presented with adequate notice to the People. They stand in stark contrast to the situation presented here, where apart from an oral announcement from the Bench that the court was considering a speedy trial dismissal, the grounds for such a ruling were neither raised by defendant nor clarified by the court.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.