In People v. Simpkins (193 Misc 2d 148, 749 NYS2d 817 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2001], affd 193 Misc 2d 447, 748 NYS2d 445 [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 585, 785 NE2d 743, 755 NYS2d 721 [2003]), the People's announcement that they were ready to start a portion of the scheduled pretrial hearing was not a statement of readiness for the Mapp/Huntley/Dunaway hearing. In Simpkins, on the adjourn date set for the hearing, the People only answered ready for the Mapp portion of the pretrial hearing. The trial court refused to conduct a bifurcated hearing. In charging the People with the resulting adjournment, the trial court rejected the People's claim that they were only required to announce their readiness to commence the suppression hearing in order to avoid being charged with the adjournment. The Appellate Term, in affirming the trial court, stated: "We agree, essentially for reasons stated by Criminal Court, that the People failed to comply with the speedy trial requirements of CPL 30.30. Each of the post readiness adjournment periods now in dispute was properly charged to the People, since the delays resulted solely from the People's repeated and unexplained unreadiness to proceed meaningfully at the combined suppression hearing twice scheduled upon ample notice. 'Because the trial could simply not go forward until defendant's omnibus motion was decided, the People's dilatory conduct in connection with the hearing necessary to that decision was a direct, and virtually insurmountable, impediment to the trial's very commencement' (People v. McKenna, 76 NY2d 59, 64, 555 NE2d 911, 556 NYS2d 514)" (193 Misc 2d at 448).