You are here: / / PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW...

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court should have granted the People’s request for an adjournment after two deputies did not show up for a Mapp hearing:

We agree with the People that the court erred in refusing to grant their request for an adjournment. It is well settled that “the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court”… . There are, however, well settled considerations to help guide a court in the exercise of its discretion. As relevant herein, for instance, “when [a] witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others” … . Additional relevant considerations in determining whether to grant a request for an adjournment include whether it was the moving party’s first request, whether the subject witness or witnesses would offer material testimony favorable to that party, and the degree of prejudice to the nonmovant … . Here, the deputies who conducted the warrantless search were under subpoena and were identified to the court. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court was entitled to rely on the prosecutor’s representation in open court concerning the issuance of subpoenas inasmuch as a prosecutor is an officer of the court with an ” unqualified duty of scrupulous candor’ ” … . Moreover, the request was the People’s first request for an adjournment, the testimony of the witnesses would be material and favorable to the People, and there was minimal prejudice to defendant, who had been released from custody on his own recognizance. In contrast, the People suffered severe prejudice because the refusal to grant an adjournment resulted in the suppression of all physical evidence. People v Schafer, 2017 NY Slip Op 05551, 4th Dept 7-7-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/ADJOURNMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN TWO DEPUTIES DID NOT SHOW UP FOR A MAPP HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)

You might also like
LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER CLAIMANTS LEARNED THE WATER AUTHORITY CREATED THE DEFECT IN THE ROADWAY.
THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATION ORDER (QDRO) AS DESCRIBED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE COURT; NO APPEAL LIES OF RIGHT FROM A QDRO, AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A PAT SEARCH; HOWEVER THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA, ABOUT WHICH THE OFFICER TESTIFIED, WOULD JUSTIFY A SEARCH; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON THE MARIJUANA-SMELL ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
Leasing Company Which Never Had Possession of the Product (Here a Garbage Truck) and Which Was a Financial Arm of the Purchaser, Not the Manufacturer, of the Product, Entitled to Dismissal of Strict Products Liability Cause of Action/However, a Question of Fact Was Raised Whether the Finance Lessor Was Liable for Failure to Inspect the Product on the Ground It Had Designated an Agent for Inspection on Its Behalf
TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT).
In SORA Context, Mild Mental Retardation Is Not a “Mental Disability”
Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL FROM EITHER A LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD,... BROKER WHICH NEGOTIATED A 2001 LEASE NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION ON THE 2011...