Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to adjourn the trial to await the arrival of a prospective witness and to reopen the case to present the testimony of that witness, particularly since the motion was made for the first time after the defense counsel's closing argument. The decision of whether or not to grant an adjournment or reopen the trial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Ventura, 35 N.Y.2d 654; People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473). The defendant had ample time to locate and secure the presence of the prospective witness prior to the resting of his case. Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion (see, People v Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 494; People v Corpas, 150 A.D.2d 710; People v Wood, 129 A.D.2d 598; People v Coleman, 114 A.D.2d 906). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.