Opinion
June 26, 1997
The Family Court's denial of appellant's motion to dismiss the petition on speedy trial grounds was proper. The minutes of the September 24, 1996 proceeding, which do not reflect a request for an adjournment to September 26, are "sufficiently clear to permit the conclusion that the adjournment was granted on consent" ( Matter of Hiram D., 189 A.D.2d 730, 732; see also, People v. Borrello, 52 N.Y.2d 952). In any event, since the fact-finding hearing was scheduled for September 27, three days after appellant's probable cause hearing and one day past the speedy trial date, the court acted with "due regard to the stated legislative goal of prompt adjudication" ( Matter of Frank C., 70 N.Y.2d 408, 414). The court properly found "good cause" since the three day adjournment was needed for trial preparation following the probable cause hearing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.