Adjournments not granted as a matter of course

Attorneys often assume that courts will grant adjournment requests as a matter of professional courtesy or practical necessity. This assumption can prove costly. New York courts possess broad discretion in managing their calendars, and judges frequently deny adjournment applications when attorneys fail to demonstrate due diligence or good cause. Understanding the standards governing adjournment requests is essential for practitioners seeking to avoid adverse rulings based on procedural defaults.

The judicial exercise of discretion in adjournment matters reflects competing concerns. Courts must balance the interests of justice, which favor allowing parties adequate time to prepare, against the need for efficient case management and protection of adversaries’ rights. When attorneys request adjournments due to their own lack of preparation or scheduling conflicts, courts often view such requests skeptically.

Similarly, the extension of time to file opposition papers requires a showing of good cause under CPLR 2004. Courts distinguish between legitimate excuses warranting extensions and situations where attorneys simply failed to manage their time effectively. The delinquent party bears the burden of offering a valid excuse for delay, and vague or conclusory explanations will not suffice.

Case Background

In Adotey v British Airways, PLC, a party sought an adjournment and extension of time to file opposition papers. The requesting party’s attorney apparently based the request on competing professional obligations rather than on circumstances beyond counsel’s control. The Supreme Court denied the adjournment request, and the requesting party appealed to the Second Department, arguing that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion.

The appellate court had to determine whether the Supreme Court’s denial of the adjournment constituted an abuse of discretion, particularly in light of the movant’s failure to exercise due diligence in preparing for the scheduled proceeding or filing timely opposition papers.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Adotey v British Airways, PLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08341 (2d Dept. 2016)

(1) “The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889), and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Diamond v Diamante, 57 AD3d 826, 827). In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors (see Hawes v Lewis, 127 AD3d at 922). 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 (see Matter of Breaker v ACS-Kings, 129 AD3d 715, 716; see also Armele v Moose Intl., 302 AD2d 986, 986).

(2) 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 (see CPLR 2004). The delinquent party must offer a valid excuse for the delay (see Kubicsko v Westchester County Elec., Inc., 116 AD3d 737, 739).”

People do not realize that cases do not get adjourned automatically because the attorney has “more pressing things to do”. It is up to the sound discretion of the trial court. I would imagine there is more than meets the eyes here.

Legal Significance

The Adotey decision reaffirms fundamental principles governing adjournment practice in New York courts. The appellate court’s analysis establishes several important points that practitioners must understand when seeking continuances or extensions of time.

First, the decision confirms that trial courts possess broad discretion in adjournment matters. Appellate courts will not disturb a trial court’s adjournment ruling absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, which is a high standard to meet on appeal. This deference to trial courts reflects their superior position to evaluate the circumstances of individual cases and manage their calendars effectively.

Second, the court emphasizes that adjournment decisions require “balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors.” These factors include the reason for the request, the requesting party’s diligence, the prejudice to the adversary, the court’s calendar constraints, and the stage of the litigation. Courts do not mechanically apply a single factor test but instead weigh multiple considerations.

Third, and most importantly for practitioners, the decision makes clear that lack of due diligence provides a valid basis for denying an adjournment. When attorneys fail to prepare adequately or manage their time effectively, courts need not accommodate their scheduling difficulties. The phrase “more pressing things to do” will not constitute good cause for an adjournment when the pressing matters reflect the attorney’s choice to prioritize other cases over their obligations in the instant matter.

Fourth, the decision’s treatment of CPLR 2004 applications for extensions of time establishes that the same principles apply to filing deadline extensions. Courts require a “valid excuse” for delay, which means more than mere assertion of workload pressure or administrative oversight. The excuse must relate to circumstances beyond the attorney’s reasonable control.

Practical Implications

Attorneys must approach adjournment requests with appropriate respect for the court’s discretion and adversary’s rights. Requests based solely on scheduling conflicts or workload pressure face significant risk of denial, particularly when the requesting attorney cannot demonstrate that the conflict arose despite due diligence.

When seeking adjournments, counsel should explain not only why an adjournment is needed but also why the need arose despite proper case management. If a scheduling conflict developed, when did it arise and why could it not have been anticipated? If more time is needed for preparation, what specific circumstances prevented timely preparation despite diligent efforts?

Attorneys should file adjournment requests as early as possible and should communicate with adversaries before approaching the court. While adversary consent does not guarantee that a court will grant an adjournment, it eliminates one source of opposition and demonstrates professional courtesy. Conversely, last-minute requests opposed by adversaries face heightened scrutiny.

For extensions of time to file opposition papers, attorneys must recognize that “good cause” under CPLR 2004 requires specific explanation of circumstances warranting relief. Generic references to office workload or administrative errors will not satisfy this standard. If the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the attorney’s control, those circumstances should be detailed in an affidavit with supporting documentation where available.

Finally, practitioners should recognize that repeated adjournment requests from the same attorney may receive increasingly skeptical treatment from courts. Judges maintain institutional memory, and attorneys who frequently seek continuances may find their credibility eroded over time, making future adjournment requests more difficult to obtain even when legitimately warranted.

Related Articles

• Motion Return Date Adjournments in New York Courts – Expert Legal Guidance
• Discretion was not abused
• The Civil King adjournment stipulation is not sacrosanct
• Improvident to examine papers