I need a link(s) to a New York State precedent, ideally an appelate
court decision, on the following.  In misdemanor court during a period
of "post-readiness" time calculations. (i.e., the prosecution has
already filed a certificate of readiness), the following situation
occurs:  The defendant has a private attorney but on the the day of
the trial the private attorney has another case.  So, the private
attorney gives the defendant a sworn affadavit explaining that he is
on another case and asking for an adjournment until a date in the
future.  The defendant goes to court alone and gives the clerk the
affadavit.  The clerk calls the defendant to the bench.  The defendant
and the judge agree that the next court will be on such and such a
date in the future.  Then, the judge asks the prosecutor if the people
are prepared to make an offer.  The people answer with an offer (it
happens to be an offer of a 240.20).  The defendant does not respond
to the people's offer.  The judge then asks the people if they are
ready.  The people reply that they are not ready.  Another thing that
happens during his time in front of the judge is that the defendant
negotiates with the judge to have the terms of a temporary order of
protection ammended to include "incidental contact".  This
negogotiation occurs successfully and the judge ammends the TOP.
   Now, my question is the following.  Can you find a link(s) to
appelate court (or a lower court but appelate is better) that says
that the speedy trial clock should NOT be tolled but rather should be
turned on, due to the fact that the people answered "not ready".  The
PROBLEM is that since the defense attorney gave the defendant an
affadavit asking for adjournment,
that this in the absence of a precedent would prevent the speedy trial
clock from being allowed to be turned on.  Remember, this is
"post-readiness" time calculation.
    I hope you can find a good precedent.  Thanks.  It should be in
the New York state courts, ideally misdeamnor court.