From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schneyer v. Silberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 1989
156 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

December 12, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.).


Plaintiffs commenced this action to evict defendant as a licensee following the voluntary departure of the statutory tenant.

The record refutes defendant's contention that she was denied due process and a fair trial by the court's refusal to grant her an unspecified period of adjournment, following her procurement of a third attorney several days before the commencement of trial, or to grant a longer continuance during her absence from trial. Applications for adjournments and continuances are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld on appellate review in the absence of an abuse of discretion (Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 A.D.2d 587, 589). Upon our review of the record on appeal, we perceive no abuse or improvident exercise of discretion in the court's decision to deny a further adjournment or a continuance longer than the five days that were given.

Next, plaintiffs, as owners of the subject premises, are not required to first obtain a certificate of eviction from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal where the record establishes defendant was a licensee who was no longer entitled to possession of the property upon the departure of the statutory tenant (see, 300 W. 49th St. Assocs. v Towasser, NYLJ, Aug. 23, 1989, at 21, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

Finally, defendant's contention that she is entitled to possession of the apartment, based on the theory of adverse possession, by virtue of her occupancy in said apartment for 15 years, is raised for the first time on appeal. Defendant's failure to raise this issue before the court precluded plaintiffs from submitting evidentiary material in opposition. Consequently, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (Arell's Fine Jewelers v Honeywell, Inc., 147 A.D.2d 922, 923). In any event, the claim is meritless.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Schneyer v. Silberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 1989
156 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Schneyer v. Silberg

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD E. SCHNEYER et al., Respondents, v. HENIA SILBERG, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 12, 1989

Citations

156 A.D.2d 200 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
548 N.Y.S.2d 458

Citing Cases

Bromer v. Rosensweig

While the rent control laws delineate certain instances for which a landlord must secure a certificate of…

Trump v. Merchan

As to petitioner's challenge to the court's order denying, as untimely, petitioner's motion to exclude…