defendant makes claim in New York

1988Notably, the defendant makes no claim that the People excluded all blacks from the jury (see, People v Jones, 143 AD2d 1044 ; People v Williams, 141 AD2d 783 ), and, in fact, the record indicates that despite available peremptory challenges at least two black jurors were impanelled.

1988"The defendant makes no claim that, in fact, the People did exclude all blacks from the jury and furthermore there is no indication that he made any objection in that regard before the trial court” (People v Williams, 141 AD2d 783, 785 ; CPL 470.05 [2]).

1893In Goddard v. The Pardee Medicine Co., 52 Hun, 85; 22 St.

1893In Goddard v. Pardee Medicine Compamy, 52 Hun, 85 , a similar question arose.

2010The absence of such a claim is significant, as it is the defendant who bears the burden of demonstrating that any postreadiness delays should be charged to the People (see People v Brewer, 63 AD3d 402 [2009]; People v Daniels, 217 AD2d 448, 452 [1995]; cf. People v Cortes, 80 NY2d at 215-216 ).

2010The absence of such a claim is significant, as it is the defendant who bears the burden of demonstrating that any postreadiness delays should be charged to the People (see People v Brewer, 63 AD3d 402 [2009]; People v Daniels, 217 AD2d 448, 452 [1995]; cf. People v Cortes, 80 NY2d at 215-216 ).

1996Accordingly, his constitutional rights were not violated (see, People v Gonzalez, 132 Misc 2d 1004, 1006 , supra).

1996CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For speedy trial purposes, the clock begins to tick when a felony complaint is filed (CPL 1.20 [17]; People v Osgood, 52 NY2d 37; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351 ).

1996CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For speedy trial purposes, the clock begins to tick when a felony complaint is filed (CPL 1.20 [17]; People v Osgood, 52 NY2d 37; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351 ).

1993See, e.g., State v Johnson, 55 Wash 2d 594, 349 P2d 227, 228-229 (1960); Durden v People, 192 Ill 493, 61 NE 317 (1901); Commonwealth v Thompson, 328 Pa 27, 195 A 115 (1937); State v McClain, 194 La 605, 194 So 563, 565 (1940); Bailey v State, 397 NE2d 1024, 1026 (Ind App 1979), supra. .

1991However, we note that the People’s contention that the defendant waived his right to appeal (cf., People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1 ) is without merit since the waiver, on its face, contained an exception permitting an appeal on the basis, inter alia, of severity of sentence, a claim which the defendant makes at bar.

1991Moreover, since he points to no argument which appellate counsel could have raised but unreasonably failed to raise on direct appeal, the defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 ; People v Wilson, 150 AD2d 631 ).

1991Moreover, since he points to no argument which appellate counsel could have raised but unreasonably failed to raise on direct appeal, the defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 ; People v Wilson, 150 AD2d 631 ).

1991Since the defendant makes no challenge to this court’s determination of those issues which were raised on his direct appeal, his motion is not properly one for reargument (cf., People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593, 597 ).

1988Notably, the defendant makes no claim that the People excluded all blacks from the jury (see, People v Jones, 143 AD2d 1044 ; People v Williams, 141 AD2d 783 ), and, in fact, the record indicates that despite available peremptory challenges at least two black jurors were impanelled.

1986The fact that she may have had a different understanding of the maintenance provisions of the agreement is not sufficient ground to alter those provisions (see, Winant v Winant, 83 AD2d 849 ).

1980The defendant makes the claim that he was arrested in his “home”, and therefore Payton v New York (supra), necessitated a warrant for his arrest.

1953It was not designed “ to drive residents of this State into other States for the purpose of preserving and enforcing their claims as against a Statute of Limitations.” (National Surety Co. v. Ruffin, 242 N. Y. 413, 418 .) In this case it does not appear, and the defendant makes no claim that the action was barred in Egypt, where the cause of action arose.

1926There must have been such a use of the water, and such damage, as would raise a presumption that complainant would not have submitted to it unless the respondents had acquired the right to so use it.” In Anderson v. Bassman ( 140 Fed. 14, 25 ) the court say: “ The defendants’ use of the water of the river was not adverse until it became injurious to the complainants and amounted to an actionable invasion of their rights.” I have adverted to the fact that the defendant makes no claim as a riparian owner but asserts a prescriptive right only.

1897(Riggs v. Pursell, 66 N. Y. 193 .) In the present case the defendant makes no claim to damage in any respect, beyond the fact that .the violation of the restriction by others is substantial, and that, therefore, damage may be inferred.

1889Id.