Case Name: William Hoffmann, Charles S. Guggenheimer, John Lewisohn, Randolph Guggenheimer, Philip Lewisohn, Emanuel Pilpel, as Trustees of the Cuban American Manufacturing Company, a Florida Corporation, Respondents, v. Lee Gunst, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-06
Citations: 54 Misc. 616
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Hoffmann, Charles S. Guggenheimer, John Lewisohn, Randolph Guggenheimer, Philip Lewisohn, Emanuel Pilpel, as Trustees of the Cuban American Manufacturing Company, a Florida Corporation, Respondents, v. Lee Gunst, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
William Hoffmann, Charles S. Guggenheimer, John Lewisohn, Randolph Guggenheimer, Philip Lewisohn, Emanuel Pilpel, as Trustees of the Cuban American Manufacturing Company, a Florida Corporation, Respondents, v. Lee Gunst, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
June, 1907.)
Municipal courts — Procedure — Adjournment — Refusal when error.
Where defendant’s affidavit, upon a motion for an adjournment of the trial for six days, recites that when the action was commenced he had an important engagement in Porto Rico; that issue was joined November 19th and set down for November 26th, at which time though he was ready for trial an adjournment was taken to November 28th, when he was also ready for trial; but the case was again adjourned until December 6th, prior to which day he had engaged passage to Porto Rico for December 1st, and that he could not postpone his business there for a longer time; that he would return as early as. December 23rd, and was a material and necessary witness; and his attorney makes affidavit to the- same effect, the denial of the motion for an adjournment is error, though it' appears that defendant has been subpoenaed as a witness for the plaintiff.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, third district, borough of Manhattan.
Nathan, Leventritt & Perham (Henry A. Blumenthal, of counsel), for appellant.
Adam.E. Stricker, for respondents.

Opinion:
Gildersleeve, J.
When this case was called for trial, on December 18, 1906, the defendant's attorney moved for an adjournment until December twenty-fourth, and submitted two affidavits and a bond with two sureties under section 194 of the Municipal Court Act. The ground of the application was that the defendant, who it was claimed was a material witness, was then absent in Porto Rico. The plaintiffs opposed the motion upon the ground that the defendant had been subpoenaed as a witness and the adjournment was thereupon refused. The affidavit of the defendant contains an affidavit of merits and recites that, at the time this action was instituted, he had an important engagement in Porto Rico; that issue was joined November nineteenth and was set down for November twenty-sixth; that he was then ready for trial, but the case was adjourned until November twenty-eighth; that on that day he was ready for trial but the case was again adjourned until December sixth; that prior to that day he had engaged passage to Porto Rico for December first, and that he could not postpone his business there- for a longer time; that he would be able to return to this city as early as December twenty-third; that none of said adjournments were made necessary by any act of his, and that he is a material and necessary witness on- the trial; and the affidavit fully sets forth the nature of his testimony and it clearly is material. The affidavit of the defendant's attorney is also to the same effect, and he also testifies that it will be impossible to safely proceed to trial without the testimony of the defendant. - We think, under this proof, which was in no way contradicted by the plaintiffs, the adjournment from December eighteenth to the twenty-fourth, a period of but six days, should have been granted. A reading of the record strongly supports this position, as it is clear that the defendant's testimony might have a material effect upon another trial. The interests of justice require a reversal of the judgment and the ordering of a new trial.
Fitzgerald and Goff, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.