Id. (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 250.10(2)). When notice is given under C.P.L. § 250.10(2), the prosecution may apply to the trial judge for an order directing the defendant to submit to an examination by a psychiatrist selected by the prosecution. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 250.10(3). The purpose of the C.P.L. § 250.10 notice provision is to “prevent disadvantage to the prosecution as a result of surprise.” People v. Berk, 88 N.Y.2d 257, 263, 644 N.Y.S.2d 658, 661, 667 N.E.2d 308 (N.Y.1996) (quoting Ronson v. Commissioner of Correction, 463 F.Supp. 97, 103 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd, 604 F.2d 176 (2d Cir.1979)). “Finally, preclusion may be an appropriate sanction when a defendant has deliberately failed to file notice until after the statutory period has run.” Ronson, 463 F.Supp. at 104 (<HOLDING>) and We do not find that Ronson deliberately
holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity holding that total preclusion unwarranted under the unusual circumstances of this case in which both sides experienced substantial delay in securing evidence with regard to an insanity defense a continuance would have provided the state with sufficient opportunity to obtain evidence to refute the defense holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second