Malhotra v. Gupta

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before THOMPSON
• Citation: Malhotra v. Gupta, 641 N.Y.S.2d 716, 226 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 29 April 1996
• Parties: Sandhya MALHOTRA, Appellant, v. Rajesh GUPTA, Respondent.

Page 716

641 N.Y.S.2d 716

226 A.D.2d 682

Sandhya MALHOTRA, Appellant, v. Rajesh GUPTA, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

April 29, 1996.

Peter C. Roth, Rockaway Park, for appellant.

Sanders & Solomon, Melville (Michael B. Solomon, of counsel), for respondent.

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and ALTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Turret, J.H.O.), dated July 19, 1994, as (1) denied her motion to reopen a hearing to determine equitable distribution of the defendant's United States medical license, and (2) upon determining that there was no marital property to be distributed, failed to make such an award.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, on the law and the facts, the plaintiff's motion to reopen the hearing is granted on condition that she pay the sum of $1,000 to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the value of the defendant's United States medical license and a determination as to whether it constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution and for entry of an amended judgment accordingly; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff's time to pay $1,000 to the defendant is extended until 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the conditions herein, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When her attorney could not appear at the continued hearing concerning, inter alia, the issue of equitable distribution with respect to the defendant's United States medical license, the plaintiff requested but was denied an adjournment. Thereafter the plaintiff moved to reopen the hearing and the motion was denied.

In deciding whether to grant an adjournment the trial court must engage in a balanced consideration of all relevant factors (see, Bay Ridge Fed. Sav. and Loan Assn. v. Morano, 199 A.D.2d 354, 605 N.Y.S.2d 377; Wilson v. Wilson, 97 A.D.2d 897, 470 N.Y.S.2d 464). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the continuance since the request was for compelling reasons and not a mere attempt to delay...