Opinion
November 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By indicating that he was ready to proceed, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the question of whether he was entitled to an additional adjournment. In any event, it is well settled that the granting or denial of an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Cable, 63 N.Y.2d 270). To grant a request for an adjournment so that a party may produce a witness to testify on his behalf, it must appear to the trial court (1) that the witness is material and appears to the court to be so, (2) that the party who applies for the adjournment has been guilty of no neglect, and (3) that the witness can be produced at the time to which the trial is deferred (see, People v Wilkins, 133 A.D.2d 477). The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the testimony of his prospective witness would have been favorable to him, that it would not have been cumulative, or that he used the requisite degree of diligence to obtain the witness's presence.
The trial court's pretrial Sandoval ruling allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant for impeachment purposes concerning the illegal acts underlying his prior youthful offender adjudication was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.