In the Matter of Steven

New York Court of Appeals

In the Matter of Steven

850 N.E.2d 646, 6 N.Y.3d 888, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by149 cases

This text of 850 N.E.2d 646 (In the Matter of Steven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Steven, 850 N.E.2d 646, 6 N.Y.3d 888, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

850 N.E.2d 646, 6 N.Y.3d 888, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-steven-ny-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack