Atwater v. Mace
| Decision Date | 10 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2004-06401. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 03086,835 N.Y.S.2d 600,39 A.D.3d 573 |
| Parties | MARION ATWATER, Respondent, v. GRACE MACE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appellants are the co-executors of the estate of Christopher E. DiPasquale, who died while this appeal was pending. Where, as here, the judgment appealed from was made upon a default in appearing at trial, review by this Court is limited to matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court (see Matter of Paulino v Camacho, 36 AD3d 821 [2007]; Wexler v Wexler, 34 AD3d 458 [2006]). Thus, our review in this case is limited to the Supreme Court's order dated May 5, 2004, which denied DiPasquale's motion to vacate his default in appearing at trial, as well as the denial of his earlier request for an adjournment of the trial date (see Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651, 652 [2004]; Settembrini v Settembrini, 270 AD2d 408, 409 [2000]; French v French, 260 AD2d 430, 430-431 [1999]; Conner v Conner, 240 AD2d 614, 615 [1997]).
The trial in this case was initially scheduled to begin on January 16, 2004. However, as neither DiPasquale nor the plaintiff was ready to proceed that day, the court adjourned the matter to the afternoon of January 22, 2004, making clear that the case, which had been pending for more than a year, would be delayed no further, despite DiPasquale's claim that he would not be ready. On the morning of January 22, 2004 a friend of DiPasquale called the court seeking another adjournment, claiming that DiPasquale had suffered an injury that morning and was en route to a hospital for treatment. The court instructed the caller that the defendant should contact the court from the hospital and have a physician explain to the court why he could not appear for trial. DiPasquale subsequently called, but did not have a physician available to corroborate the medical reason given for his failure to appear for trial. The trial was adjourned until 3:00 P.M. to give DiPasquale additional time to either appear or have a physician contact the court. As he did neither, his default was recorded and the matter proceeded to inquest.
A request for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Matter of Paulino v Camacho, supra; Matter of Kagno v Kagno, 296 AD2d 410, 411 [2002]; Wolosin v Campo, 256 AD2d 332 [1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. York
...Davidson v. Davidson, 54 A.D.3d 988, 988, 863 N.Y.S.2d 923;Mirzoeff v. Nagar, 52 A.D.3d 789, 789, 861 N.Y.S.2d 740;Atwater v. Mace, 39 A.D.3d 573, 574, 835 N.Y.S.2d 600;Matter of Alario v. DeMarco, 149 A.D.2d 587, 589, 540 N.Y.S.2d 270). However, the discretion of the court must be “more na......
-
Vera v. Soohoo
...S., Jr. [ Duane S.], 88 A.D.3d 727, 728, 930 N.Y.S.2d 474;Diamond v. Diamante, 57 A.D.3d 826, 827, 869 N.Y.S.2d 609;Atwater v. Mace, 39 A.D.3d 573, 574, 835 N.Y.S.2d 600;Matter of Kagno v. Kagno, 296 A.D.2d 410, 410–411, 745 N.Y.S.2d 458). On September 11, 2009, during a status conference, ......
-
Dervisevic v. Dervisevic
...default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Ogazi v. Ogazi, 46 A.D.3d 646, 848 N.Y.S.2d 248; Atwater v. Mace, 39 A.D.3d 573, 574, 835 N.Y.S.2d 600; Faltings v. Faltings, 35 A.D.3d 350, 824 N.Y.S.2d 730). Here, the defendant failed to submit any competent evidence th......
-
In the Matter of Duane S. (anonymous)
...821, 822, 828 N.Y.S.2d 496, quoting Matter of Constance P. v. Avraam G., 27 A.D.3d 754, 755, 813 N.Y.S.2d 463; see Atwater v. Mace, 39 A.D.3d 573, 574, 835 N.Y.S.2d 600; Tun v. Aw, 10 A.D.3d 651, 652, 782 N.Y.S.2d 96; Matter of Vidal v. Mintzer, 309 A.D.2d 756, 758, 765 N.Y.S.2d 385; Conner......