Can a Court Be Expected to Find Out Reasons for Delay Due to Adjournments ?

In People v. Betancourt (217 A.D.2d 462, 629 N.Y.S.2d 423 [1st Dept., 1995]), the defendant "did not merely list the adjournment dates... he identified the specific adjournment periods chargeable to the People due to their lack of readiness, while noting periods that were excludable because of consent or motion practice" ( People v. Betancourt, supra at 463). In so doing, the defendant created a sufficient factual basis for contesting the C.P.L. 30.30 motion. Herein, Petitioner (aside from his arrest and arraignment dates) neither identified any dates chargeable to the People nor gave any causation basis for the claimed generic violation. His motion left the court with "allegations in his motion papers [that] did not spell out a legal basis for relief" (People v. Calderon, 223 A.D.2d 380, 381, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1005 [1st Dept., 1996], quoting People v. Lomax, supra at 358). Additionally, review is precluded "by lack of an adequate record... includ[ing]... the minutes" of the questioned time periods (see People v. Calderon, supra at 381, quoting People v. Brisko, 219 A.D.2d 493, 494, 631 N.Y.S.2d 516 [1st Dept., 1995]). A court cannot be expected to divinate reasons for delay (see People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975]).