Opinion
November 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Upon a review of the record we find no justification for the appellant's refusal to issue a permit to the petitioner. Although the appellant need only show a rational basis for its decision (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, 120 A.D.2d 166), and safety has consistently been held as a rational basis for denying permits (Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 110), there is no evidence in the record that the petitioner's request would endanger the public safety.
Nor do we find merit in the appellant's contention that the trial court's denial of a requested adjournment was an abuse of discretion. The decision to grant an adjournment is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284). This discretion will be more narrowly construed where fundamental rights are at issue (People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698) or where brief adjournments are requested "`to secure witnesses * * * where the witness is identified, is within the courts [sic] jurisdiction and there is a showing of some diligence and good faith'" (People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 702, citing People v. Brown, 78 A.D.2d 861). There is a question as to the diligence utilized by the appellant in getting its witnesses to court on the original date. The attorney for the appellant stated that one of the witnesses was on personal leave for the day and the other was in the field. With a week's notice, this does not show a high degree of diligence on the part of the appellant in securing witnesses to oppose the petition. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.