Skip navigation


91 N.Y.2d 999, 698 N.E.2d 952, 676 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1998).
May 14, 1998

2 No. 60

[98 NY Int. 0058]
Decided May 14, 1998

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Frank J. Loss, for appellant.
Elizabeth S. Natrella, for respondent.


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 considerablediscretion 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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Decided May 14, 1998