People v. De Rosa
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Parties | , 366 N.E.2d 868 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank De ROSA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Pat R. Mercurio, Hollis, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Judith K. Rubinstein, New York City, and William C. Donnino, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.
Order of the Appellate Term affirmed.
The issue in this case did not turn on denial of a speedy trial. Had it been so, the failure of defendant to follow the procedure under CPL 210.20, 210.45 would sustain the reversal by the Appellate Term. Nor was the procedure at the trial court appropriate for a dismissal in the furtherance of justice under CPL 170.30 (subd. 1(e), (g)) (CPL 170.45). The correct issue was the abrupt refusal of the trial court on calendar call to allow an adjournment until 2:00 p. m. of the day previously set for trial. This, on the conceded facts and inevitable inferences from them, constituted an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, p. 459; ch. 16).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holtzman v. Goldman
...appeal, the People acknowledge that the trial court had the power to grant or deny a further adjournment ( see, People v. De Rosa, 42 N.Y.2d 872, 397 N.Y.S.2d 780, 366 N.E.2d 868). They question only its authority to enter a nonappealable trial order of dismissal, purportedly based upon a r......
-
People v. Popko
...we find that the refusal to grant the requested adjournment represented an improvident exercise of discretion (see People v. De Rosa, 42 N.Y.2d 872, 873, 397 N.Y.S.2d 780, 366 N.E.2d 868[1977] ; People v. Schafer, 152 A.D.3d 1228, 1228, 57 N.Y.S.3d 875 [2017] ; People v. De Carr, 158 A.D.2d......
-
Hynes v. George
...of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d, at 580, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297 [Bellacosa, J., dissenting]; cf., People v. De Rosa, 42 N.Y.2d 872, 397 N.Y.S.2d 780, 366 N.E.2d 868 [refusal of trial court to grant prosecutor a few hours adjournment under the facts of that case constituted an abu......
-
People v. Jordan
...Rights Law, § 12) has been infringed. The issue was not raised by written motion as required by CPL 210.45 (see People v. DeRosa, 42 N.Y.2d 872, 397 N.Y.S.2d 780, 366 N.E.2d 868; People v. Weinberg, 59 A.D.2d 727, 398 N.Y.S.2d 360) but it is urged that a prior pro se application for a writ ......