People v. Brewer

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Brewer

698 N.E.2d 952, 91 N.Y.2d 999, 676 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1073

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 698 N.E.2d 952 (People v. Brewer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Brewer, 698 N.E.2d 952, 91 N.Y.2d 999, 676 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1073 (N.Y. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

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 [1]) and that the trial court unreasonably delayed his sentencing (see, CPL 380.30 [1]). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

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 [1]) and that the trial court unreasonably delayed his sentencing (see, CPL 380.30 [1]). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 N.E.2d 952, 91 N.Y.2d 999, 676 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brewer-ny-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack