The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion. In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors. It is not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny an adjournment where the need for such a request is based on the movant's failure to exercise due diligence. In addition, while a court has the discretion to grant an extension of time to file opposition papers, it must be upon a showing of good cause, pursuant to CPLR 2004, and the delinquent party must offer a valid excuse for the delay.
Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for the adjournment and extension. They made no showing of good cause because they did not offer a valid excuse for the extension, and the record reflected that the need for an adjournment resulted from a lack of due diligence on their part.
Case: Adotey v. British Airways, PLC, NY Slip Op 08341 (2d Dep't December 14, 2016)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Wheel stops and liability.