Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J. on CPL § 30.30 motion; Harold Adler, J. on suppression motion) rendered April 1, 2003, upon a plea of guilty, convicting him of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Seth L. Marvin on CPL § 30.30 motion; Harold Adler, J. on suppression motion), rendered April 1, 2003, affirmed.

Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The People met their burden of establishing that defendant voluntarily consented to submit to the blood test (see People v Atwood, 2 AD3d 1331 [2003], lv denied 3 NY3d 636 [2004]). Defendant's contention that the results of the blood test should have been suppressed because the test allegedly was administered more than two hours after his arrest is unpreserved and, in any event, is without merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that the test was not timely administered, defendant's consent to the test renders the two-hour limit (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2][a][1]) inapplicable (see People v Atkins, 85 NY2d 1007 [1995]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's speedy trial arguments, including his constitutional claim (see People v Haneiph, 191 Misc 2d 738 [2002]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court. [*2]
Decision Date: January 25, 2006