There was no violation of appellant's right to a speedy fact-finding hearing. Appellant consented to the only adjournment at issue. It is apparent that the minutes of the March 9, 2011 proceeding erroneously attribute appellant's counsel's express declaration of consent to counsel for another respondent in the Family Court proceeding. Given that counsel for both co-respondents had just agreed to waive speedy trial time and that only appellant's counsel was being addressed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
