Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. In cases involving absent defendants, preindictment delays have been held to be chargeable to the People because the defendants' actions did not prevent or impede the filing of an indictment (see, People v. Colon, 59 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Sturgis, 38 N.Y.2d 625). In the case at bar, even though the defendant's consent to adjournments ordered by the court, during which he was directed to retain private counsel, did not prevent the People from presenting his case to the Grand Jury, the adjournment periods are excludable (see, People v. Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523). These adjournments were for the defendant's benefit; he acquiesced therein, and he is, accordingly, deemed to have waived any objection to the delays (People v. Worley, supra).
Regarding the defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial, we find that none of the contentions of alleged error were preserved, either for lack of an objection to the prosecutor's comments (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Switzer, 115 A.D.2d 673; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751), or for lack of an objection to the adequacy of the court's curative instructions (see, People v. Baldo, supra; see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). A new trial is not warranted in the interest of justice. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.