Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Dune Deck Owners Corp., respondents, v. J.J. & P. Associates Corp., et al., defendants; J.P. Liggett, nonparty-appellant.
Argued—June 13, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the nonparty J.P. Liggett appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated April 7, 2009, as, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct a resale of the subject property at public auction, and denied his cross motion to direct the plaintiff to cooperate in a sale of the property to him or to return his deposit on the property.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improperly refuse to grant him a third adjournment before deciding the underlying motion and cross motion. “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 Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889, quoting Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283; see Matter of Ciccone v. Ciccone, 73 AD3d 1052; Diamond v. Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827). Upon consideration of all of the attendant circumstances in this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a third adjournment (see Lopez v. DePietro, 82 AD3d 715, 715–716; Matter of Philip K. v. Thervey B., 78 AD3d 1183, 1184).
Similarly, the Supreme Court did not err in deciding the motion and cross motion without a hearing, since the appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of any relevant factual dispute warranting a hearing (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Zlotoff, 77 AD3d 702).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., BELEN, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2009–04193 (Index No. 14938 /03)
Decided: June 28, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)