Court Opinion

ID: 5831031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:24:40.283818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:27.458976
License: Public Domain

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment of the Sex Offender Registration Act hearing (see People v Sherard, 73 AD3d 537 [2010]; People v Wright, 53 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]; People v Ellis, 52 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2008]; People v Di John, 48 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2008]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Angiolillo, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.