In Boltz v. Ascolesi , the Kings County Civil Court denied Peter Ascolesi's succession-rights claim to a rent-controlled apartment and granted possession to the landlord, Maude Boltz.
Although Ascolesi asserted he had been prejudiced by his unrepresented status and the court's refusal to grant an adjournment, on appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, disagreed, explaining that the lower court had appropriately decided to deny the pro se occupant -- who had already been granted lengthy adjournments to procure counsel and formulate his strategy -- yet additional time to make his documentary evidence admissible.
Whether or not a litigant will be granted an adjournment is subject to the trial court's discretion. And, absent a clear showing of abuse, a lower court's decision in that regard will usually not be disturbed on appeal.
Here, Ascolesi conceded that he had made little effort to obtain counsel despite multiple warnings by the court and opposing counsel that he was faced with a difficult case. The appellate court also chastised Ascolesi for failing to research how to conduct his defense.
According to the AT2, while the decision to proceed without counsel is a risky proposition, a pro se litigant is not entitled to any greater rights than any other party, and will not receive concessions at the expense of another's rights.
And despite Ascolesi's protestations to the contrary, the record demonstrated that the court gave him ample leeway during the trial so that he could attempt to make out his claims.
With the exception of his employer, who was not certain where the respondent lived, Ascolesi reportedly made no attempt to produce witnesses or even identify potential witnesses that he might produce if given more time. Conversely, his landlord had arranged for numerous witnesses to be present at the trial and would have been severely inconvenienced by further delay.
The AT2 also concluded that Ascolesi's motion for a new trial had been properly denied since he failed to raise any new issues and could not establish that the documents he intended to offer would have decided the issue of residency in his favor, even if they had been admitted into evidence.
So you see, going solo ain't all it's cracked up to be.
To download a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Boltz v. Ascolesi