Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
In the Matter of Steven
In the Matter of Steven, 6 N.Y.3d 888 (New York Court of Appeals 2006)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2006-05-11
- Topic
- general
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The grant or denial of a motion for “an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984] [citations omitted]). Contrary to appellant mother’s claims, Family Court’s refusal to grant her application for an adjournment fails to constitute an abuse of discretion. Mother’s need for an adjournment to call additional witnesses resulted from her lack of due diligence in preparing for the hearing.
Citator
- Cited by
- 62 opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.
The grant or denial of a motion for “an adjournment for any purpose is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283 [1984] [citations omitted]). Contrary to appellant mother’s claims, Family Court’s refusal to grant her application for an adjournment fails to constitute an abuse of discretion. Mother’s need for an adjournment to call additional witnesses resulted from her lack of due diligence in preparing for the hearing. Moreover, the witnesses she wished to call were not identified or would testify cumulatively. Under these circumstances, Family Court acted within its discretion in refusing to adjourn the hearing. Mother’s remaining contentions lack merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.