Legal Opinion
Fonvil v. Alexandre
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 16, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The petitioner contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his application made during the hearing for an adjournment to secure the attendance of certain witnesses. The determination of that application was a matter resting within the Supreme Court’s sound discretion (see Farrell v Gelwan, 30 AD3d 563 [2006]; Herbert v Edwards Super Food Stores-Finast Supermarkets, 253 AD2d 789 [1998]; Klombers v Lefkowitz, 131 AD2d 815, 816 [1987]; Michaels v Dalimonte, 121 AD2d 370 [1986]). Considering, among other things, the petitioner’s lack of due diligence in securing the attendance of those…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Master v. PohankaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Herbert v. Edwards Super Food Stores-Finast Supermarkets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Farrell v. GelwanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Michaels v. DalimonteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Telford v. Laro Maintenance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Matter of Stavisky v. LeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Matter of Carr v. KepiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Matter of Baldeo v. ChoudhuryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Matter of Park v. FuchsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022