¶1OPINION OF THE COURT
¶2Memorandum.
¶3The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
¶4Defendant argues that he did not receive a prompt probation revocation hearing (see, CPL 410.70 [1]) and that the trial court unreasonably delayed his sentencing (see, CPL 380.30 [1]). We disagree. Trial courts have considerable discretion in administering litigation and in managing their dockets. Given this discretion, the time between the filing of the declaration of delinquency and the final hearing was not unreasonable as a matter of law. Similarly, the shorter period between the final hearing and the sentencing was not unreasonable as a matter of law.
¶5Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
¶6Order affirmed in a memorandum.