Opinion
2005-448 KC.
Decided February 27, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered on August 20, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
It is well settled that an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Byrnes v. Varlack, 17 AD3d 616), and will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion ( see Klein v. Klein, 6 Misc 3d 132 [A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50106[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists]). In the instant case, to have granted said application would have unduly delayed the trial. Further, the application was necessitated as a result of plaintiff's failure to exercise due diligence in conducting discovery since the documents produced at trial by defendant could have been obtained through proper discovery. While plaintiff was self represented at trial, such a litigant acquires no greater right than any other litigant and such appearance may not be used to deprive defendant of the same rights enjoyed by other defendants ( Roundtree v. Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 996). Thus, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's application for an adjournment.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.