Legal Opinion
Hynes v. George
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 16, 1990PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*502OPINION OF THE COURT
Hancock, Jr., J.
The People three times announced their readiness for trial in the case of People v Daniel Ruso. On the date the trial was to commence, however, the prosecutor sought an adjournment because the complaining witness failed to appear at a meeting that morning and could not be reached by telephone. The trial court denied the request and ordered the trial to proceed. The issue is whether the trial court had the power to deny the People’s request for an adjournment and to proceed with jury selection. We conclude that the trial court had such power and that the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rush v. MordueNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Holtzman v. GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. KingNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Dondi v. JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Brown v. AppelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Catterson v. RohlAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. ChristensenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Montgomery v. MullerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. CoppezNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.