Opinion
January 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J., Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court committed reversible error in declining to grant his request for an adjournment in order to permit him additional time to locate a witness whose plea allocution allegedly exculpated the defendant. We disagree.
It is well settled "that requests for adjournments are addressed to the court's sound discretion" (see, People v Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 702; People v Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698; People v Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405; People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476). Moreover, "[a]s a general matter of policy, requests for brief adjournments to secure witnesses should be granted where the witness is identified, is within the court's jurisdiction and there is a showing of some diligence and good faith" (People v Brown, 78 A.D.2d 861).
The record reveals that when the witness — who was served with a subpoena on Monday — failed to appear on Tuesday, defense counsel delayed until Thursday afternoon to request that the court grant him a one-week adjournment to locate the witness. Moreover, in requesting the adjournment, defense counsel made it clear that he intended to spend the major part of the week on a previously scheduled vacation. It does not appear, on the record before us, that the adjournment requested would have enabled the defense counsel to locate the witness. Indeed, between Tuesday and Thursday the defendant, defense counsel and the defendant's wife made a number of attempts to locate the witness, both at his home and the locations he customarily frequented, with no success. Further, the court had previously granted defense counsel one brief adjournment in attempting to secure the witness's testimony and assisted the defendant by ascertaining through its computer that the witness had been released from prison.
Under the circumstances presented at bar, we conclude that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to grant the adjournment.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.