adjournment hearing in New York

2026"The granting of an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the hearing court upon a balanced consideration of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Neferteir A.R. [Jesse R.R.] , 221 AD3d 605 , 606 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Steven B. , 6 NY3d 888, 889 ).

2020The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the father's application for an adjournment of the hearing ( see Family Ct Act § 1048[a]; Matter of Steven B. , 6 NY3d 888, 889 ; Matter of Logan R. [Manuel R.] , 168 AD3d 946 , 947).

2024See CPL §§ 30.30(4)(b) & (g); Clarke , 28 NY3d at 52 ; Hamilton , 73 NYS at 163; People v. Logan , 202 NYS 3d 43 , 44 (1st Dept. 2023). 0 days charged (13 total) .

2024See CPL §§ 30.30(4)(b) & (g); Clarke , 28 NY3d at 52 ; Hamilton , 73 NYS at 163; People v. Logan , 202 NYS 3d 43 , 44 (1st Dept. 2023). 0 days charged (13 total) .

2015Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2015Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2014County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the violation of probation hearing to en able him to obtain a copy of the plea and sentencing transcripts from the underlying conviction (see People v Strauts, 67 AD3d 1381 , 1381 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 773 [2010]; see also People v Darryl P., 105 AD3d 1439, 1440 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]).

2014County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the violation of probation hearing to en able him to obtain a copy of the plea and sentencing transcripts from the underlying conviction (see People v Strauts, 67 AD3d 1381 , 1381 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 773 [2010]; see also People v Darryl P., 105 AD3d 1439, 1440 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1041 [2013]).

2016As quoted above, Smith states that counsel’s mere failure to object to an adjournment, or indication that a date requested by the People is inconvenient, is not a request or a clear expression of consent for purposes of calculating excludable time under CPL 30.30 (see id. at 678 ).

2000The motion for reconsideration is based on a common and persistent misunderstanding of the rules set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v Smith ( 82 NY2d 676 ) and People v Liotta ( 79 NY2d 841 ), which cases refused to imply a consent to an adjournment from defense counsel’s absence.

2022Luke's Cornwall Hosp. , 112 AD3d 661 , 661, quoting Nieves v Tomonska , 306 AD2d 332, 332 ). "[I]n determining such applications courts must undertake a 'balanced consideration' of all relevant factors" ( Giardina v Barasch , 131 AD3d 1007, 1007 , quoting Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp. , 46 AD3d 778, 779 ).

2014“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the [hearing] court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).

2017The decision whether to grant a request for an adjournment rests in the sound discretion of the court (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283-284 [1984]).

2000The Family Court’s denial of the husband’s request for an adjournment of the hearing was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 ; York v York, 250 AD2d 841 ).

2015The People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the hearing after defense counsel provided them with a recorded interview of the People’s witness who was to testify at that hearing, and the time permitted for the adjournment of that hearing was excludable (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a], [g]; People v Moolenaar, 262 AD2d 60, 60 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 826 [1999]).

2015The People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the hearing after defense counsel provided them with a recorded interview of the People’s witness who was to testify at that hearing, and the time permitted for the adjournment of that hearing was excludable (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a], [g]; People v Moolenaar, 262 AD2d 60, 60 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 826 [1999]).

2015Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2015Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the condition of his probation that he abstain from the use of intoxicating beverages (see People v Flinn, 92 AD3d 1217, 1217-1218 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Jones, 50 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the condition of his probation that he abstain from the use of intoxicating beverages (see People v Flinn, 92 AD3d 1217, 1217-1218 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Jones, 50 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the condition of his probation that he abstain from the use of intoxicating beverages (see People v Flinn, 92 AD3d 1217, 1217-1218 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Jones, 50 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the condition of his probation that he abstain from the use of intoxicating beverages (see People v Flinn, 92 AD3d 1217, 1217-1218 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 994 [2012]; People v Jones, 50 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 936 [2008]).

2017It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by striking the word “condition” in the third ordering paragraph and substituting therefor the word “component,” and as modified the order is affirmed without costs in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order that awarded sole custody of the parties’ child to respondent mother, granted the father access to the child, and ordered that, as a “condition of such [a]ccess,” the father “shall complete a program of [a]nger [m]anagement classes.” We reject the father’s conte

2017Contrary to the mother’s contention in both appeals, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment of the hearing (see Matter of Sanchez v Alvarez, 151 AD3d 1869, 1869 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of VanSkiver v Clancy, 128 AD3d 1408, 1408 [4th Dept 2015]).

2013Here, County Court complied with the statutory requirements and defendant was neither denied the ability to offer relevant materials in support of his application nor prevented from defending himself against any evidence or documentation relied upon by County Court in deciding such application. 4 In light of the foregoing, and particularly considering the overwhelming evidence in the record mitigating against a modification, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing under the circumstances here (see People v Rodrigue

2013Here, County Court complied with the statutory requirements and defendant was neither denied the ability to offer relevant materials in support of his application nor prevented from defending himself against any evidence or documentation relied upon by County Court in deciding such application. 4 In light of the foregoing, and particularly considering the overwhelming evidence in the record mitigating against a modification, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing under the circumstances here (see People v Rodrigue

2013“Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” (People v Smith, 82 NY2d 676, 678 [1993]; see People v Battaglia, 187 AD2d 808, 810 [1992]).

2013“Adjournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” (People v Smith, 82 NY2d 676, 678 [1993]; see People v Battaglia, 187 AD2d 808, 810 [1992]).

2013Here, County Court complied with the statutory requirements and defendant was neither denied the ability to offer relevant materials in support of his application nor prevented from defending himself against any evidence or documentation relied upon by County Court in deciding such application. 4 In light of the foregoing, and particularly considering the overwhelming evidence in the record mitigating against a modification, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing under the circumstances here (see People v Rodrigue

2013Here, County Court complied with the statutory requirements and defendant was neither denied the ability to offer relevant materials in support of his application nor prevented from defending himself against any evidence or documentation relied upon by County Court in deciding such application. 4 In light of the foregoing, and particularly considering the overwhelming evidence in the record mitigating against a modification, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing under the circumstances here (see People v Rodrigue

2004Nor was there sufficient development by the hearing officer of the testimony presented by her”]; Matter of Rezoagli v Toia, 62 AD2d 1020, 1020 [2d Dept 1978] [“Ms. Battaglia was not accorded the opportunity to make a clear presentation of her evidence on the issue of the agency’s prior approval and was not advised of her right to procure an adjournment of the hearing to enable her to produce witnesses essential to her case”]; Zsedel v Toia, 60 AD2d 883, 883-884 [2d Dept 1978] [“the hearing officer failed to uphold his duty to protect the rights of the parties [in that although the appellant] w

2004Nor was there sufficient development by the hearing officer of the testimony presented by her"]; Matter of Rezoagli v Toia , 62 AD2d 1020, 1020 [2d Dept 1978] ["Ms. Battaglia was not accorded the opportunity to make a clear presentation of her evidence on the issue of the agency's prior approval and was not advised of her right to procure an adjournment of the hearing to enable her to produce witnesses essential to her case"]; Zsedel v Toia , 60 AD2d 883, 883-884 [2d Dept 1978] ["the hearing officer failed to uphold his duty to protect the rights of the parties [in that although the {** 4 Misc

2019Here, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying the father's application for an adjournment of the hearing on August 8, 2018, as good cause was not shown ( see Matter of Leonard v Leonard , 150 AD3d 1242, 1244 ; Matter of Lorys v Powell , 116 AD3d at 1048 ; Matter of Braswell v Braswell , 80 AD3d 827, 828 ).

2017In light of the fact that the father had requested several prior adjournments, which the Support Magistrate had granted, and the father’s failure to articulate a legitimate reason for his request for another adjournment, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying his application for an adjournment of the hearing on July 10, 2015 (see Matter of Lorys v Powell, 116 AD3d at 1048; Matter of Braswell v Braswell, 80 AD3d 827, 828 [2011]; Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields, 74 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2010]).

2019Here, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying the father's application for an adjournment of the hearing on August 8, 2018, as good cause was not shown ( see Matter of Leonard v Leonard , 150 AD3d 1242, 1244 ; Matter of Lorys v Powell , 116 AD3d at 1048 ; Matter of Braswell v Braswell , 80 AD3d 827, 828 ).

2017In light of the fact that the father had requested several prior adjournments, which the Support Magistrate had granted, and the father’s failure to articulate a legitimate reason for his request for another adjournment, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying his application for an adjournment of the hearing on July 10, 2015 (see Matter of Lorys v Powell, 116 AD3d at 1048; Matter of Braswell v Braswell, 80 AD3d 827, 828 [2011]; Matter of Proctor-Shields v Shields, 74 AD3d 1347, 1348 [2010]).

2019Here, the Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in denying the father's application for an adjournment of the hearing on August 8, 2018, as good cause was not shown ( see Matter of Leonard v Leonard , 150 AD3d 1242, 1244 ; Matter of Lorys v Powell , 116 AD3d at 1048 ; Matter of Braswell v Braswell , 80 AD3d 827, 828 ).

2019The Support Magistrate's refusal to grant the father an additional adjournment was not an improvident exercise of discretion absent good cause shown ( see 22 NYCRR 205.43[d][3]; see also Matter of Leonard v Leonard , 150 AD3d 1242, 1244 ; Matter of Lorys v Powell , 116 AD3d 1047, 1048 ).

2012Thus, “[i]n light of the amount of time that the children had spent in foster care and the fact that the mother’s attorney vigorously represented her interests at the [fact-finding] hearing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the hearing in her absence” (Matter of La’Derrick J.W. [Ashley W.], 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]).

2012Thus, “[i]n light of the amount of time that the children had spent in foster care and the fact that the mother’s attorney vigorously represented her interests at the [fact-finding] hearing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the hearing in her absence” (Matter of La’Derrick J.W., 85 AD3d 1600, 1602 , lv denied 17 NY3d 709 ).