O'Sullivan v. Esmay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Sullivan v. Esmay

210 A.D.2d 730, 620 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12695

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 730 (O'Sullivan v. Esmay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Sullivan v. Esmay, 210 A.D.2d 730, 620 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), entered September 15, 1993, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Albany in favor of plaintiff.

On this appeal, defendant claims that he was not provided with a reasonable adjournment in City Court to allow for his appearance. Initially, defendant elected to send an employee to represent him at the trial. During the course of the trial, however, an adjournment was requested so that defendant himself could appear. City Court permitted a one-hour adjournment. Defendant did not appear, however, citing his busy dental practice as the reason. Given these facts, we find no basis for reversing on the ground that the adjournment was inadequate. As County Court noted in affirming City Court, defendant knew that he was being sued and elected not to appear. He should have realized that his failure to appear could work to his detriment.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), entered September 15, 1993, which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Albany in favor of plaintiff.

On this appeal, defendant claims that he was not provided with a reasonable adjournment in City Court to allow for his appearance. Initially, defendant elected to send an employee to represent him at the trial. During the course of the trial, however, an adjournment was requested so that defendant himself could appear. City Court permitted a one-hour adjournment. Defendant did not appear, however, citing his busy dental practice as the reason. Given these facts, we find no basis for reversing on the ground that the adjournment was inadequate. As County Court noted in affirming City Court, defendant knew that he was being sued and elected not to appear. He should have realized that his failure to appear could work to his detriment.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 730, 620 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osullivan-v-esmay-nyappdiv-1994.