Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
Under the circumstances defense counsel's failure to renew a motion premised on speedy trial grounds (see, CPL 30.20, 30.30 Crim. Proc.) did not constitute the ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457; People v. Torrence, 135 A.D.2d 1075). The mere fact that a pretrial motion was not made is not a talismanic indicator that a defendant has been denied the assistance of counsel to which he is constitutionally entitled (see, People v. Prescott, 133 A.D.2d 472; People v. Boero, 117 A.D.2d 814; People v. Taylor, 105 A.D.2d 814). In any event, we are not persuaded that the defendant's speedy trial motion would have been successful if it had been renewed (see, People v. Manley, 63 A.D.2d 988, 989; see also, People v. Taylor, 127 A.D.2d 714; People v. Walters, 127 A.D.2d 870, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 956, 70 N.Y.2d 658; cf., People v. Torrence, supra). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.