The surety's application pursuant to CPL 540.30 for remission of a forfeiture of bail is denied.

Defendant is accused by felony complaint of assault in the second degree, a class D felony (see Penal Law § 120.05[2]) on account of an incident that is alleged to have occurred on September 7, 2013. At his September 8, 2013 arraignment, the court (Ciaffa, J.) set bail at $100, cash or bond. According to the notations on the court file, on September 8, 2013, Defendant had an "ICE" hold, and the case was adjourned to September 11, 2013 for conference. Also according to the clerk's notations on the court file, on September 11, 2013, bail was posted, but Defendant was nonetheless to be "prod[uced]" on the next court date, which was September 19, 2013. On September 19, 2013, I adjourned the case to October 30, 2013. On October 30, 2013, however, Defendant was no longer in the custody of the sheriff. Since he did not appear in court, I issued a [*2]warrant and directed that bail be forfeited (see CPL510.50, 540.10). The surety now moves for remission of that forfeiture. The only ground asserted in support is "deported," and "defendant was deported 9/11/13." The People submit no opposition.

The obligation to appear in court as directed is a serious one, and an application to remit a bail or bond forfeiture that occurs because the obligation was not honored is a matter of judicial discretion that should be exercised in favor of the movant only where a compelling circumstance is shown (see People v DiMeo, 181 AppDiv 893, 167 NYS 1118 [2d Dept. 1917] see also People v. Peerless Insurance Co., 21 AD2d 609, 253 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1st Dept. 1964] cf. People v. Valenzuela, 241 AD2d 320, 660 NYS2d 13 [1st Dept. 1997] and see People v. Fiannaca, 306 NY 513 [1954] People v. Scalise, 105 AD2d 869, 482 NYS2d 362 [3d Dept. 1984]). No such showing is made here. Indeed, not only does movant decline to provide details, it appears from the notations on the court file that Defendant's deportation was at least predictable, and that nominal bail was fixed, both as a courtesy to Defendant to ensure he received proper credit upon any sentence imposed in this case for time spent in custody in this county, and to secure his continued presence in this county. It also appears that the posting of bail is what triggered Defendant's release to immigration officials and rendered him beyond the court's control (cf. CPL570, 580, 590). Since the warrant was not issued in error (cf. People v. Frederick, 154 Misc 2d 513, 585 NYS2d 982 [Sup Ct, Kings County, 1992, Vaughan, J.]), and since movant fails to come forward with any circumstance that justifies remission of the forfeiture notwithstanding the continuing validity of that warrant (see People v. Fiannaca, supra), his application is denied.

So Ordered.