Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application for authorization to obtain an investigator at county expense (see, County Law § 722-c) because defendant failed to make the required showing of necessity to justify the request (see, Johnson v Harris, 682 F.2d 49, 50-51, cert denied 459 U.S. 1041; People v Filomeno, 138 A.D.2d 734, 735, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1026; People v Pride, 79 Misc.2d 581, 582-583). Defendant's claim regarding the court's submission to the jury of a summary of the statutory elements of each crime charged in the indictment was not preserved for review (cf., People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 831) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (see, People v Ryan, 152 A.D.2d 960). Defendant was not denied due process of law by the delay in perfecting this appeal because defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice as a result of the delay (see, People v Cousart, 58 N.Y.2d 62; People v Pratt, 149 A.D.2d 956; People v Gaines, 143 A.D.2d 520, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 855). We have reviewed defendant's remaining claims including those made in his pro se brief and find each one lacking in merit.