and/or costs of moving the furniture, as part of its duties to do
the repairs. Nor could the court read into the stipulation obliga-
tions that are not provided for therein. With regard to tenant's
contention that landlord had moved the furniture in the past,
and was therefore presently responsible for moving it to make
the necessary repairs, the court properly concluded on the mo-
tion papers that this was an accommodation that did not cre-
ate a duty on the part of the landlord to continue to assume
such obligation thereafter.
The tenant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for ap-
pellate review or without merit.
Patterson, J. P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
[Decision amended to correct caption by order of the Appel-
late Term, Second Department, dated December 26, 2001.]
72 190 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 2d SERIES
[735 NYS2d 912]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Fred
Collins, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, October 25, 2001
SUMMARY
Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of
New York, Richmond County (William E. Garnett, J.), dated
October 2, 2000, which dismissed the information pursuant to
CPL 30.30 (1) (b).
People v Collins, 186 Misc 2d 818, armed.
HEADNOTE
Crimes — Right to Speedy Trial — Exclusions — Adjournment
Where People Confused as to Trial Date
The People were properly charged with the adjournment of defendant's
trial from March 8, 2000 though April 5, 2000 for speedy trial (CPL 30.30)
purposes. After pretrial hearings concluded on February 10, 2000, the court
stated that it was reserving its decision and, because the case was ‘‘fairly
old,’’ it was adjourning the case until March 8, 2000 for both its decision on
defendant's motions and for trial. The People should have been aware on