People v. Santiago
89 A.D.3d 911, 932 N.Y.2d 718
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment of the Sex Offender Registration Act hearing (see People v Sherard, 73 AD3d 537 [2010]; People v Wright, 53 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]; People v Ellis, 52 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2008]; People v Di John, 48 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2008]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Angiolillo, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Santiago, 89 A.D.3d 911, 932 N.Y.2d 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 911 (People v. Santiago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Worrell
113 A.D.3d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)