Pinnacle Uptown, LLC v Banks

[*1] Pinnacle Uptown, LLC v Banks 2009 NY Slip Op 51597(U) [24 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on July 22, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 22, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570038/08.

Pinnacle Uptown, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Asia Banks, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered October 18, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the nonpayment petition and directed a hearing to determine the reasonable attorney's fees due tenant.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered October 18, 2007, affirmed, with $25 costs.

A court is vested with broad discretion to control its calendar (see 174 Second Equities Corp. v Hee Nam Bae, 57 AD3d 319 [2008]) and the grant or denial of a motion for an adjournment is addressed to the court's sound discretion (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888 [2006]). The court's denial of landlord's application for an adjournment did not constitute an abuse of discretion in these circumstances, where the landlord's need for an adjournment resulted from its own lack of due diligence in preparing for trial and where the witnesses it intended to call were not identified. The landlord's revisionist assertion that on the date set for trial it had "not yet ha[d] the opportunity to review the HPD inspection report or to explore other settlement options with [tenant]" is belied by its attorney's contemporaneous explanation that the adjournment was needed to allow landlord to "subpoena DHCR" for reasons not clearly articulated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: July 22, 2009