People v. Reyes (Yesica)

People v Reyes (2021 NY Slip Op 51194(U)) [*1] People v Reyes (Yesica) 2021 NY Slip Op 51194(U) [73 Misc 3d 141(A)] Decided on December 9, 2021 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on December 9, 2021 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ 2019-1564 S CR The People of the State of New York, Respondent, against Yesica Reyes, Appellant. Scott Lockwood, for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Kenneth Diamond, J.H.O.), rendered May 9, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant, after a trial in absentia, of speeding, and imposed sentence. ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Defendant was charged in a simplified traffic information with speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [a]). The record indicates that this matter was originally scheduled for trial on April 23, 2019; however, a few days earlier, defense counsel submitted an affirmation of engagement and requested an adjournment of the trial, which request was granted. Trial was rescheduled for May 9, 2019. On the morning of the trial, an affirmation of actual engagement was filed wherein defense counsel indicated that he was scheduled to appear in several other criminal matters, some of which involved felony charges, and requested a second adjournment of the trial. Neither defense counsel nor defendant appeared for trial. A trial in absentia was held, after which the court found defendant guilty of speeding and imposed sentence. Under the circumstances presented, including that defense counsel, having already been granted an adjournment and having waited until the morning of trial to file his affirmation of actual engagement with the court, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny defense counsel's request for an adjournment (see Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts [22 NYCRR] § 125.1; Wallace v Wallace, 172 AD3d 1433 [2019]; Matter of Nurse, 160 AD3d 745 [2018]; Passaro v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 289 AD2d 70 [2001]; Gage v Gage, 227 AD2d 443 [1996]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them, under the [*2]circumstances presented, to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. RUDERMAN, P.J., DRISCOLL and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: December 9, 2021