Nieves v. Tomonska, 306 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Nieves v. Tomonska, 306 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 6 distinct cases, 2013–2020 · 2 courts · …an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion at p. 332 ✓
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Seidner & Assoc., P.C. v. Hemings (nyappterm, 2020-11-12)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seidner & Assoc., P.C. v. Hemings
N.Y. App. Term. · 2020 · confidence medium
"An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion" ( Nieves v Tomonska , 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Matter of Winfield v Gammons , 105 AD3d 753 , 754 [2013]; Diamond v Diamante , 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp. , 46 AD3d 778 , 779 [2007]; Middle Vil.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Middle Vil. Chiropractic v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2017 · confidence medium
"An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion" ( Nieves v Tomonska , 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Matter of Winfield v Gammons , 105 AD3d 753 , 754 [2013]; Diamond v Diamante , 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp. , 46 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Denkewitz v. Sundara
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the [hearing] court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the [hearing] court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Matter of Martinez v Ramos, 122 AD3d 927, 928 [2014]; Matter of Samida v Samida, 116 AD3d at 780 ; Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MRI Enters., Inc. v. Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Furthermore, an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion (see Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp., 46 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]; Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samida v. Samida
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the [hearing] court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Samida v. Samida
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the [hearing] court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Black v. St. Luke's Cornwall Hospital
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp., 46 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Black v. St. Luke's Cornwall Hospital
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753, 754 [2013]; Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]; Noble Thread Corp. v Noble Group Corp., 46 AD3d 778, 779 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Mohammed J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We reject the father’s contention that the Family Court erred in denying his request to adjourn the date scheduled for his testimony at the dispositional hearing. “ ‘[A]n application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion’ ” (Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753 , 754 [2013], quoting Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Mohammed J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We reject the father’s contention that the Family Court erred in denying his request to adjourn the date scheduled for his testimony at the dispositional hearing. “ ‘[A]n application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion’ ” (Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 AD3d 753 , 754 [2013], quoting Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York v. York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The grant or denial of a request for an adjournment or continuance “will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Davidson v Davidson, 54 AD3d 988, 988 [2008]; Mirzoeff v Nagar, 52 AD3d 789, 789 [2008]; Atwater v Mace, 39 AD3d 573, 574 [2007]; Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 587, 589 [1989]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York v. York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The grant or denial of a request for an adjournment or continuance “will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion” (Nieves v Tomonska, 306 AD2d 332, 332 [2003]; see Davidson v Davidson, 54 AD3d 988, 988 [2008]; Mirzoeff v Nagar, 52 AD3d 789, 789 [2008]; Atwater v Mace, 39 AD3d 573, 574 [2007]; Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 587, 589 [1989]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maria Nieves
v.
Eugenia Tomonska
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 9, 2003.
306 A.D.2d 332
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered April 4, 2002, which, upon the granting of the plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability and upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the sum of $75,000 for past pain and suffering and $125,000 for future pain and suffering, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion (see Wolosin v Campo, 256 AD2d 332 [1998]; Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 587 [1989]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request of the defendant’s attorney for a one-day continuance to allow the defendant to present testimony. The defendant’s attorney failed to provide an offer of proof that the defendant’s alleged inability to appear was due to work obligations, as the defendant claimed, or regarding the materiality of the defendant’s testimony.

The verdict as to damages did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501 [c]; Semple v New York City Tr. Auth., 301 AD2d 514 [2003]; Ferrantello v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 275 AD2d 387 [2000]).

[*333] The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.