From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brewer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 14, 1998
91 N.Y.2d 999 (N.Y. 1998)

Opinion

Argued April 1, 1998

Decided May 14, 1998

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department.

Frank J. Loss, New York City, Rosali Vazquez and Daniel L. Greenberg for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that he did not receive a prompt probation revocation hearing (see, CPL 410.70) and that the trial court unreasonably delayed his sentencing (see, CPL 380.30). We disagree. Trial courts have considerable discretion in administering litigation and in managing their dockets. Given this discretion, the time between the filing of the declaration of delinquency and the final hearing was not unreasonable as a matter of law. Similarly, the shorter period between the final hearing and the sentencing was not unreasonable as a matter of law.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Brewer

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 14, 1998
91 N.Y.2d 999 (N.Y. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Brewer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY BREWER…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 14, 1998

Citations

91 N.Y.2d 999 (N.Y. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 123
698 N.E.2d 952

Citing Cases

People v. Lora

The court also noted that the People had failed to indicate prior to the decision date that they needed…

People v. Pierre-Paul

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not lose jurisdiction over the matter by reason…