You are here: / / Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to P...

Judge’s Refusal to Grant a One-Day Adjournment to Allow Defendant to Present a Witness (After the Judge Granted the People’s Request for a Missing-Witness Jury Instruction) Was Reversible Error

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the judge refused to grant defendant a one-day adjournment to bring in a witness after granting the People’s request for a missing-witness jury instruction:

Having granted the People’s request for the [missing witness] instruction, the court should have granted defendant a short adjournment. A missing witness issue “must be raised as soon as practicable so that the court can appropriately exercise its discretion and the parties can tailor their trial strategy”… . Here, the moving party raised the issue after defendant’s testimony, when the issue became apparent. The court should have then accorded the nonmoving party the opportunity to avoid the missing witness charge by calling the witness. Although defendant was willing to call the witness, the court effectively rendered the witness unavailable, thus negating the availability requirement for a missing witness charge.

The court apparently denied the adjournment on the ground that defendant should have anticipated the missing witness issue. However, an adjournment to the next day would have been reasonable under the circumstances. People v Manzi, 2014 NY Slip Op 00280, 1st Dept 1-16-14

 

You might also like
Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted
PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT START DEMONSTRATING NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
ARCHITECT MAY BE LIABLE FOR BOTH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE.
Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to File Late Notice of Claim
County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue
THE PEOPLE PROPERLY RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE TO CALL THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY INTO QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).
Inability to Remember Fall and Absence of Witnesses Did Not Preclude Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action
Dissolved Corporation Amenable to Suit Under New Jersey Law/Substitute Service Upon Insurer of Dissolved Corporation Proper

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a... Level Three Forcible Stop Not Justified, Convictions Reversed—Prior Arrest...