Hoffner v. County of Putnam

2 Citing cases

  1. Normandin v. Bell

    162 A.D.3d 1156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

    Furthermore, the expert's testimony was material, plaintiffs requested only a brief adjournment, the court had allotted two weeks for trial and the continuance request was not made for the purpose of delay. Accordingly, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for a continuance (seeZysk v. Bley, 24 A.D.3d 757, 758, 806 N.Y.S.2d 705 [2005] ; Mura v. Gordon, 252 A.D.2d 485, 485, 675 N.Y.S.2d 142 [1998] ; Hoffner v. County of Putnam, 167 A.D.2d 755, 756, 562 N.Y.S.2d 891 [1990] ; Gombas v. Roberts, 104 A.D.2d at 522, 479 N.Y.S.2d 592 ). To that end, defendant's motions to strike the expert testimony and to dismiss the complaint based upon plaintiffs' failure to prove a prima facie case should have been denied.

  2. Waters v. Silverock Baking Corp.

    172 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    It is apparent from the record that defendant made no effort to obtain Scarlett's return to New York and that his testimony could have been timely secured by merely delivering a judicial subpoena to the Provost Marshall at Fort Dix. Therefore, the need for the continuance resulted from defendant's failure to exercise due diligence in securing the testimony of the witness (see, CPLR 4402; cf., Hoffner v. County of Putnam, 167 A.D.2d 755, 756; Cirino v. St. John, 146 A.D.2d 912, 913). Nor do we agree with the contention that Supreme Court committed reversible error in certain of its evidentiary rulings.