From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avildsen v. Prystay

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 841 (N.Y. 1992)

Summary

In Liotta, the Court of Appeals stated, "The People's contention that a defendant consents to an adjournment either by failing to object to the adjournment, or by defense counsel's failure to appear is meritless."

Summary of this case from People v. Lewis

Opinion

Decided January 14, 1992


On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), appeal dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


Summaries of

Avildsen v. Prystay

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1992
79 N.Y.2d 841 (N.Y. 1992)

In Liotta, the Court of Appeals stated, "The People's contention that a defendant consents to an adjournment either by failing to object to the adjournment, or by defense counsel's failure to appear is meritless."

Summary of this case from People v. Lewis
Case details for

Avildsen v. Prystay

Case Details

Full title:JOHN AVILDSEN, Respondent, v. MYROSLAWA PRYSTAY, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 1992

Citations

79 N.Y.2d 841 (N.Y. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 184
588 N.E.2d 82

Citing Cases

People v. Lewis

Different lines of decisional law have developed under each of the two provisions, and neither line, with…

People v. Jaquez

This adjournment is excludable (see CPL 30.30 [4] [b] ; Kopciowski , 68 N.Y.2d at 617, 505 N.Y.S.2d 52, 496…