Opinion
April 2, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Bruce M. Kaplan, J.).
On the first day of the fact-finding hearing, respondent's counsel requested an adjournment in order to locate witnesses, which the presentment agency opposed on the ground that its only witness, the arresting police officer, who was a reserve member of the armed forces, was expecting to receive orders the following day to embark for Saudi Arabia. In light of the potential imminent unavailability of the agency's witness, Family Court ordered that the hearing go forward only with respect to the agency's witness, and promised respondent that he would be granted a continuance to present witnesses. After the arresting officer completed her direct testimony, respondent requested a continuance for the purpose of preparing cross-examination. While Family Court granted a six-day adjournment and ordered that the police officer make herself available in the event that she was still within the jurisdiction on the adjourn date, it denied the motion in the event the witness was unavailable at that time. By the adjourn date, however, the police officer had embarked on her military mission.
Respondent's argument that Family Court should have granted successive 30-day adjournments pursuant to Family Court Act § 340.1 (6) is not preserved for review, and in any event, without merit. Family Court Act § 340.1 was enacted by the Legislature because it deemed the "speedy resolution of charges against juveniles to be paramount" (Matter of Frank C., 70 N.Y.2d 408, 414; Matter of Detrece H., 164 A.D.2d 306). In this case, after having been granted an adjournment so as to conduct further investigation defense counsel was unable to come forward with any cogent reason for further adjournment. While a refusal to grant an adjournment in order to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare a defense can result in a remand (see, e.g., Matter of Milton D., 72 A.D.2d 812; Matter of Nelson R., 51 A.D.2d 727), there were exigent circumstances, and "in the absence of a showing on the record, of special circumstances" in the instant case (Family Ct Act § 340.1), the possibly indefinite adjournment sought by respondent was precluded by the very statutory provision on which he relies.
We have considered respondents remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.