From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 5, 1968
56 Misc. 2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)

Opinion

June 5, 1968

Appeal from the Small Claims Part of the District Court of Nassau County, ALFRED F. SAMENGA, J.

Silverman Lipschitz ( Ira P. Block of counsel), for appellant.

Arnold Zeitlin, respondent in person.


Under the circumstances shown here, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in refusing defendant's request for an adjournment. Aside from the fact that defendant had adequate time, prior to the trial date, to implead the proposed third-party defendant, it is admitted that no notification was given to plaintiffs that an adjournment of the trial would be requested. On these facts, to compel plaintiffs to again return to court for the trial of a small claim would tend to defeat the beneficial purpose of the Small Claims Part which is to afford an individual the opportunity to litigate a matter personally with the least possible delay or expense.

The judgment should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Concur — HOGAN, P.J., GLICKMAN and PITTONI, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 5, 1968
56 Misc. 2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
Case details for

Zeitlin v. Merrick Bay Park

Case Details

Full title:ARNOLD ZEITLIN et al., Respondents, v. MERRICK BAY PARK, INC., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 5, 1968

Citations

56 Misc. 2d 1039 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
290 N.Y.S.2d 851

Citing Cases

Hayden v. L.I.L. Co.

It has been argued that an Appellate Term case appealing an order of the District Court of Nassau County…