Landlord appeals from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered October 18, 2007, after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the nonpayment petition and directed a hearing to determine the reasonable attorney's fees due tenant.

Per Curiam.

Final judgment (Gary F. Marton, J.), entered October 18, 2007, affirmed, with $25 costs.

A court is vested with broad discretion to control its calendar (see 174 Second Equities Corp. v Hee Nam Bae, 57 AD3d 319 [2008]) and the grant or denial of a motion for an adjournment is addressed to the court's sound discretion (see Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888 [2006]). The court's denial of landlord's application for an adjournment did not constitute an abuse of discretion in these circumstances, where the landlord's need for an adjournment resulted from its own lack of due diligence in preparing for trial and where the witnesses it intended to call were not identified. The landlord's revisionist assertion that on the date set for trial it had "not yet ha[d] the opportunity to review the HPD inspection report or to explore other settlement options with [tenant]" is belied by its attorney's contemporaneous explanation that the adjournment was needed to allow landlord to "subpoena DHCR" for reasons not clearly articulated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: July 22, 2009