Opinion
April 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Warren County (Dier, J.).
On December 6, 1990, Supreme Court sent a notice to the parties' attorneys scheduling this negligence action for trial on January 14, 1991. Plaintiff's attorney appeared on the scheduled trial date and requested an adjournment of the trial, claiming that he experienced difficulty in reaching plaintiff, who resided in Paris, France. Plaintiff's attorney stated that although he "knew before the end of the year * * * that it was unlikely that [he] would be ready to go forward" on the scheduled trial date, he "was under the impression there would be no difficulty [in requesting] an adjournment the first time the parties [were] together after the notice of trial". Supreme Court denied plaintiff's request for an adjournment and dismissed the action with prejudice. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' improper design and construction of a staircase caused her to fall. In a New Jersey action, plaintiff settled her falldown claim against the property owners for $104,400.
There should be an affirmance. The law is clear that the conduct of a trial, including adjournments thereof, is committed to the trial court's sound discretion (Matter of Case, 24 A.D.2d 797; see, Matter of Housing Dev. Fund. Co. v County of Rockland, 134 A.D.2d 594). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, "the court must indulge in a balanced consideration of all relevant factors" (Wilson v Wilson, 97 A.D.2d 897, 898; see, Cirino v St. John, 146 A.D.2d 912, 913). On this record, we find no basis to disturb Supreme Court's exercise of discretion. Plaintiff's attorney did not outline the steps he had taken to prepare the case for trial or the efforts which were made to secure plaintiff's appearance. Nor did he provide affidavits or other documents demonstrating that plaintiff was unable to attend because of her injuries (see, Woertler v Woertler, 110 A.D.2d 947, 948; cf., Englert v Hart, 112 A.D.2d 3). Indeed, there was no indication as to when plaintiff would be ready to proceed. In these circumstances, Supreme Court had an ample basis to find that the need for an adjournment resulted from failure to exercise due diligence (see, Waters v Silverock Baking Corp., 172 A.D.2d 984, 985, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1071).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.