Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Catherine DiDomenico, J.), entered August 17, 2005. The order dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Order affirmed without costs.

Upon the inability of plaintiff's per diem counsel to proceed to trial, the court below providently exercised its discretion in denying counsel's request for an adjournment and in dismissing the action with prejudice (see Morris v Start, 268 AD2d 787 [2000]; Ortolani v Town of Hempstead, 256 AD2d 451 [1998]; Sherman v Carnegie Hall Corp., 99 AD2d 978 [1984]). Plaintiff on multiple occasions had failed to appear personally for trial, even though he was the principal witness to his own claims, and plaintiff's counsel had sent per diem counsel, patently unprepared to proceed, to court on those occasions, materially inconveniencing both the court and defendant. The foregoing provided an appropriate basis for the court's ruling (see e.g. Wolosin v Campo, 256 AD2d 332 [1998]; Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 547 [1989]).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007