Opinion ID: 1992657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Request For A Continuance

Text: Ms. Esteves argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance. In Hammond v. Weekes, 621 A.2d 838, 844 (D.C.1993) we said: Ordinarily, the decision to grant or deny a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion (quoting Thompson v. Thompson, 559 A.2d 311, 313 (D.C.1989)). We are especially hesitant to overturn the denial of a day-of-trial request for a continuance.... Taylor v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 407 A.2d 585, 594 (D.C.1979). Ms. Esteves had already been granted a two month continuance since trial was to have started on April 13. Her delay in failing to depose Mr. Esteves in the two month period between April and June is unexplained. Mr. Esteves vigorously opposed the first continuance. Furthermore, Ms. Esteves knew in May 1995, that her counsel would withdraw, and she consented to that withdrawal on June 9, even though she knew trial was scheduled for June 13. She made no effort to obtain new counsel. Granting her a second continuance in the face of her dilatory behavior would not have been in the interests of justice. See Taylor, 407 A.2d at 594-95.