Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered September 16, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $9,000.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the lower court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied as untimely defendant's request for a jury trial. A party served with a notice of trial which does not contain a demand for a jury trial may obtain one by serving a demand within 10 days after service of the notice of trial (CCA 1303 [a]). If a party fails to serve the demand within the applicable time period, the right to a jury trial is waived (CCA 1303 [b]). While a court may excuse a party's failure to
comply with CCA 1303 (a), the party must show that there will be no undue prejudice (CCA 1303 [c]). The decision as to whether to allow additional time in which to file a jury demand is within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Villalba v Citibank (S.D.), 271 AD2d 601 [2000]; Paternoster v Drehmer, 260 AD2d 867 [1999]). Here, defendant requested a jury trial for the first time on the day of trial, which was the second time that the action had appeared on the trial calendar.

We note, with respect to the pro se defendant's argument that he was not given any instructions by the court and did not understand the "legal jargon" being used during the trial, that it is well settled that a litigant who appears pro se at trial does so at his own peril and [*2]acquires no greater rights than any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995 [1988]). Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 27, 2006