Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court's refusal to grant him an adjournment to obtain the presence of his alibi witnesses violated his constitutional rights and constituted an abuse of discretion. We disagree. It is well settled that the decision to grant or deny an adjournment for any purpose is a matter within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405). In the instant case, there has been no showing of a diligent and good-faith attempt on the defendant's part to insure the witnesses' appearance at trial (see, People v Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 631, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 645). The record discloses that the defendant had more than sufficient time to serve the witnesses with subpoenas to ensure their presence at the trial (see, People v Hayes, 116 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 884). Thus, under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the adjournment (see, People v Morton, 117 A.D.2d 631, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 947).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.