In this misdemeanor indictment charging the defendant with driving while intoxicated, this court previously held that after a defective supporting deposition is served, the People's statements of readiness are illusory when the defendant files a motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument (People v. Davis, 2014 NY Slip Op 24307 [10/16/14]).

The defendant now moves for reargument pursuant to CPLR § 2221(d)(2), contending, in words or substance, that where there is a jurisdictional defect in the accusatory instrument, the People's declaration of readiness is illusory and that any time statutorily excluded must be overlooked in calculating whether the People were ready for trial within 90 days of the filing of the original accusatory instrument. In this case, time was statutorily excluded from the court's calculation based upon the defendant's repeated requests for an adjournment to seek counsel.

However, it has been held that where a defendant consents to an adjournment, that time period is excluded from the People's time limit under CPL § 30.30, even where the People do not yet have a jurisdictionally valid accusatory instrument. People v. Worley, 66 NY2d 523 (1985); see also People v. Johnson, 93 AD3d 408, 409 (1st Dept 2012).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to reargue is granted, and upon reconsideration the relief sought is denied. The court's decision of October 16, 2014, stands.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.