Does a motion for an order dismissing an accusatory instrument in the furtherance of justice have any merit?

not been filed within 45 days of arraignment when the defendant has shown good cause why lateness could not have reasonably been avoided (People v. Anderson, 201 AD2d 658 [2d Dept 1994]). The defendant has made no such showing and has failed to address the lateness issue at all. Therefore, the defendant's motion for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument in the furtherance of justice is time-barred and as such is hereby denied.

Even if the court had found that the motion was not time-barred, the motion would still have had no merit. The defendant's central argument is that a conviction would seriously harm his career in finance. Leaving aside that such a concern does not satisfy the criteria expressed in People v. Frigenti, (91 Misc 2d 139 [Sup Ct Kings County 1977]),