525 52 v. Steven Tsokanos, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, and "John Doe" and "Jane Doe," Respondents. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Final judgments (Frances A. Ortiz, J.), each entered on August 8, 2025, affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs. Appeal from decision/order (Frances A. Ortiz, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2025, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the final judgments.

On this appeal, tenant does not challenge the trial court's fully supported findings that he listed his rent- stabilized apartment on the Airbnb website for short-term rentals and engaged in profiteering. Tenant instead claims that the trial court improperly accelerated the trial date and improperly denied his request for an adjournment. We find both claims to be unavailing.

The matter had scheduled trial dates in October 2025. On May 30, 2025, the parties appeared for a settlement conference of this proceeding and another proceeding against tenant involving a second rent-stabilized apartment where he is alleged to have engaged in the same conduct, i.e., listing that apartment on Airbnb and profiteering. When a settlement could not be finalized, this proceeding was adjourned until June 10, 2025. On that date, landlord requested an acceleration of the October 2025 trial date, arguing that tenant was still advertising the apartment at issue in this proceeding on Airbnb. Critically, when the court asked tenant's counsel if June 25, 2025 was a good date for trial, counsel replied "absolutely," and did not otherwise object or indicate that his client would be unavailable. The court also scheduled, without objection, a second trial date of July, 11, 2025 since it was anticipated that the matter could not be completed in one day. Thus, having acquiesced to the acceleration of the trial date, we find tenant's current challenge to that acceleration unavailing, and the claims in the appellate brief that counsel objected to the acceleration are belied by the record.

Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the denial of tenant's June 23, 2025 application to adjourn the June 25, 2025 trial date based upon his scheduled travel to Canada. "Applications for adjournments and continuances are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld on appellate review in the absence of an abuse of discretion" (Schneyer v Silberg, 156 AD2d 200, 201 [1989], appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 872 [1991]). Here, the record shows no abuse or improvident exercise of discretion. We also take judicial notice of tenant's motion to this court for a stay pending appeal (see Vasquez v Christian Herald Assn. Inc., 186 AD2d 467, 468 [1992], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 783 [1993]), which shows that tenant purchased his airline ticket to Canada a week after the trial court accelerated the trial date.

In any event, although the court denied tenant's application and proceeded to the first [June 25th] day of trial with only tenant's counsel present, the court ultimately granted tenant a continuance and, by mutual agreement of the parties, scheduled the second trial date on August 8, 2025. However, on August 8, 2025, tenant, without explanation or excuse, again failed to appear and his counsel indicated that he had no witnesses. On this record, tenant was given ample opportunity to appear and testify on his own behalf and we find no abuse of discretion warranting reversal. Rather, the record is consistent with procedural gamesmanship to delay or derail the proceeding by a party with no substantive defense.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: October 20, 2026