When Should Routine Adjournments Be Rejected?

In New York, the CPLR provides the timing for responses to motion, and absent good cause, parties are expected to observe the CPLR. The law, however, is not draconian. The parties may agree to an adjournment, and when they disagree, one party may request an adjournment. 22 NYCRRR 202.8(e)(2). Granting such a request is within the sound discretion of the court. E.g. Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; see also CPLR 2004 (permitting the court to extend time periods upon showing of good cause).

However, a request with no reason should not be granted. A party requesting an adjournment must make some showing of cause. See Natl. Loan Invs., L.P. v Bruno, 191 AD3d 999, 1000 [2d Dept 2021] (“Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in extending the time for the defendant to answer . . . defendant failed to provide a detailed and credible explanation. . . .”); Henderson v Stilwell, 116 AD2d 861, 862 [3d Dept 1986] (merely requesting an adjournment is not enough); Coleman v Mettler-Toledo, Inc., 212 AD2d 971 [4th Dept 1995] (proper to deny request where party failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance); De Cuyper v Gonzales, 214 AD2d 764, 765 [3d Dept 1995] (Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' request due to the failure to allege a sufficient basis for the extension); Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Wolcott, 252 AD2d 628, 630 [3d Dept 1998] (“no valid excuse was proffered”).

This goes to the basic meaning of the exercise of discretion. For a court to exercise discretion, there must be something worthy of the court’s consideration. In the absence of sound basis in reason, there can be no exercise of discretion. See, e.g. People v Hardy, 42 Misc 3d 444, 446 [Clinton County Ct 2013]) (“Since no facts have been presented upon which this court can justifiably exercise its discretion . . . the application must be and hereby is denied.”); People v Welch, 16 AD2d 554, 556 [4th Dept 1962]) (“Here no facts were presented to the trial court upon which discretion might have been exercised”); Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v Rabinowitz, 284 NYS 526, 529 [1935]) (“no facts appear which would authorize the exercise of such discretion”).

Professional courtesy often dictates that we grant routine requests for adjournments. But if you have reason to oppose an adjournment, and no reason for the request is given, you might persuade the court to reject even a “routine” adjournment request.