MIRZOEFF v. NAGAR

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Eli MIRZOEFF, et al., respondents, v. Julia NAGAR, et al., appellants.

Decided: June 24, 2008

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ. Alter & Barbaro, Brooklyn, N.Y. (B. Mitchell Alter of counsel), for appellants. Dollinger, Gonski & Grossman, Carle Place, N.Y. (Michael J. Spithogiannis of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15, inter alia, to determine the rights of the parties to certain real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), entered February 14, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, determined that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the subject property.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 A request for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Atwater v. Mace, 39 A.D.3d 573, 574, 835 N.Y.S.2d 600).   Further, although courts will routinely afford pro se litigants, as the defendants were throughout the trial, some latitude, a “litigant's decision to proceed without counsel does not confer any greater rights than those afforded to other litigants, nor may a pro se appearance serve to deprive parties in opposition of their right to a fair trial” (Sloninski v. Weston, 232 A.D.2d 913, 914, 648 N.Y.S.2d 823;  see Banushi v. Lambrakos, 305 A.D.2d 524, 759 N.Y.S.2d 345).   Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' request for an adjournment (see Stoves & Stones v. Rubens, 237 A.D.2d 280, 655 N.Y.S.2d 385;  Natoli v. Natoli, 234 A.D.2d 591, 592, 651 N.Y.S.2d 618).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard