Hynes v. George, 76 N.Y.2d 502 (1990)
A trial court has the power to deny a prosecutor’s request for an adjournment and to proceed with jury selection, even when the prosecutor claims they are not ready due to the unavailability of a witness, as long as the court does not enter an order of dismissal that would improperly terminate the criminal proceeding.
Summary
This case addresses the extent of a trial court’s authority when a prosecutor declares unreadiness on the day of trial. The Court of Appeals held that a trial court, after denying the People’s request for an adjournment due to the complaining witness’s failure to appear, could proceed with jury selection. The Court emphasized that this action did not constitute an unauthorized dismissal of the case, distinguishing it from situations where a court prematurely terminates proceedings. The decision underscores the trial court’s discretion in managing its calendar and preventing undue delays, provided the defendant’s speedy trial rights are not violated.
Facts
Daniel Ruso was indicted for robbery and harassment for allegedly stealing $5 from his grandmother, Maria Ruso. On the day of the trial, the prosecutor requested an adjournment because Maria Ruso failed to appear for a pre-trial meeting and could not be reached. The prosecutor knew the complainant was the defendant’s grandmother and reluctant to testify but did not subpoena her. The trial court denied the request, noting the People’s awareness of the complainant’s reluctance and their failure to secure her presence through a subpoena.
Procedural History
The case reached trial after multiple announcements of readiness by the prosecution and adjournments for various reasons. The trial court denied the People’s request for an adjournment and ordered jury selection to proceed. The People sought a writ of prohibition from the Appellate Division, which was granted, staying the trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the trial court acted within its authority.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial court, after denying the People’s request for an adjournment due to the unavailability of a complaining witness, has the power to proceed with jury selection.
Holding
Yes, because the trial court has the inherent power to control its calendar and prevent unnecessary delays, and ordering jury selection does not equate to an improper dismissal of the case, as long as the People are not prevented from presenting their case within statutory speedy trial limitations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy available only when a court acts without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers. The court acknowledged the trial court’s undisputed power to deny the People’s adjournment request. The Court distinguished this case from Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, where a trial court improperly terminated a criminal proceeding by issuing a trial order of dismissal before any evidence was presented. The Court clarified that the trial court’s order to proceed with jury selection did not constitute a dismissal, nor did it prevent the People from attempting to locate the witness during the jury selection process or from making a subsequent adjournment request. The Court also rejected the People’s argument that their time to prepare under CPL 30.30 had not yet lapsed, stating that People v. Anderson does not grant the People immunity from a post-readiness order requiring them to go to trial before the expiration of the CPL 30.30 readiness period. The Court reasoned that allowing the People to halt the trial proceedings through a collateral proceeding would effectively nullify the trial court’s power to deny adjournment requests, stating that “To hold that prohibition lies in this situation would nullify the trial court’s power to deny prosecutors’ requests for adjournments and enable prosecutors, displeased with the denial of their adjournment requests, to override the trial court’s ruling by simply commencing a collateral proceeding.”