The following numbered papers were used on this motion: NYSCEF Doc No. 36: Notice of motion NYSCEF Doc No. 37: Affirmation of Raymond Ardito in Support of Motion NYSCEF Doc No. 38: Exhibit A, DMV Search NYSCEF Doc No. 39: Exhibit B, Email from Plaintiff’s Counsel to Defendant’s counsel as Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 40: Exhibit C, Affirmation of Merit NYSCEF Doc No. 41: Word Certification for Affirmation of Merit NYSCEF Doc No. 42: Affirmation of Service NYSCEF Doc No. 45: Rejection of Stipulation of Adjournment ORDER Upon the foregoing papers and having heard oral argument on the record, the within motion is determined as follows. Background This action was commenced on July 25, 2023, by the filing of a summons and complaint. Plaintiff Eric Thompson Jr. alleges that he sustained severe and permanent personal injuries on March 20, 2023, when his vehicle, a 2016 BMW, was struck by two other vehicles on the Belt Parkway at or near the Mill Basin Bridge in Brooklyn, New York. The vehicles involved were a 2015 Nissan operated by an unknown driver referred to as John Doe, employed by and with the consent of its owner Shamdu Nelson, and a 2010 Nissan driven by Joses Pierre. Plaintiff claims the accident resulted from the negligence and recklessness of Defendants regarding vehicle operation and maintenance. (See generally NYSCEF Doc No. 1, Complaint.) On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion for a default judgment and an assessment of damages against Joses Pierre pursuant to CPLR §3215 (a) and (b). The motion was calendared for Friday, June 7, 2024. On June 5, 2024, a stipulation to adjourn the motion for default judgment against Joses Pierre to Friday, July 12, 2024, was filed with the Court. The stipulation was agreed upon by Plaintiff and Defendants John Doe and Shamdu Nelson. The Court rejected it. The issues are whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and whether to grant the parties’ stipulation to adjourn the motion. Discussion (1) Court Rules A trial court possesses the right to enforce the rules governing practice and procedure before it (e.g. McGee v. Bishop, 192 AD3d 1446 [3d Dept 2021] [page-limit for memoranda of law]; Basie v. Wiggs, 173 AD3d 1127 [2d Dept 2019] [Matrimonial Part rules]; Appleyard v. Tigges, 171 AD3d 534 [1st Dept 2019] [60-day summary judgment motion deadline]; Biscone v. Jetblue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158 [2d Dept 2012] [provide working copies of electronically-filed documents]; Maddus v. Bowman, 12 AD2d 626 [2d Dept 1960] [Statement of Readiness Rule requiring plaintiff to furnish authorization to obtain hospital records]; Shmerelzon v. Gravesend Mgt., Inc., 80 Misc 3d 1233[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51155[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [adjournment requests must contain specified data and be submitted on three days in advance]; Wade v. Khadka, 80 Misc 3d 1222[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 51058[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [identify party seeking adjournment and good cause reason]; Brick&Mortar LLC v. Momo Sushi Inc., 79 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50838[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2023] [submission of referenced electronically-filed documents as exhibits to motion papers]; Stipa Sprecase v. Tenreiro, 2023 WL 3972435 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] [motions to reargue or renew be made by order to show cause]; Latorre v. Rahman, 2022 NY Slip Op 32044[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2022] [no motions allowed until conference is held]; Bedingfield v. Dairymade Farms, Inc., 46 Misc 2d 146, 148 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1965] [rule requiring statement of readiness be filed with note of issue "is consistent with the inherent power of the Court to control its business"]; Scully v. Jefferson Truck Renting Corp., 43 Misc 2d 48 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1964] [statement of readiness be filed with note of issue]; cf. Crawford v. Liz Claiborne, Inc., 11 NY3d 810 [2008] [IAS Part rule not in effect when preliminary conference order issued, resulting in application of Local Rules]). “[I]t is within the court’s inherent and statutory power to control the order of its business, and to so conduct its business as to safeguard the rights of all litigants, to preclude unfair procedural advantage to any party, and to prevent needless disruption of orderly court procedures” (Maddaud v. Bowman, 12 AD2d 626, 626 [2d Dept 1960]). (2) Stipulation to Adjourn Motion The stipulation to adjourn the motion for a default judgment remains DENIED because it violated two of this Court’s IAS Part 2 Rules. The stipulation provided: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for plaintiff and defendants “JOHN DOE” and SHAMDU NELSON, that plaintiff’s motion, motion sequence # 4, for an Order pursuant to CPLR §3215 (a) and (b), directing a default judgment and an assessment of damages against defendant JOSES PIERRE, setting the matter down for an inquest against defendant JOSES PIERRE at the time of trial against all defendants herein, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper, shall be adjourned to July 12, 2024, or any other date the Court shall direct (NYSCEF Doc No. 45, Stipulation & Rejection). First, the stipulation violates IAS Part 2 Rules, Part II (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart D (Adjournments), §1. It provides: “The deadline for filing such stipulations of adjournments and applications for adjournments shall be 5:00 p.m. of the third court business day prior to the scheduled motion date” (https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml [last accessed Jun. 14, 2024]). The stipulation was filed on June 5, 2024, which is later than three court business days prior to the motion date, which was June 7, 2024. Although the date written in the document is June 4, 2024, it was filed in NYSCEF one day later (see NYSCEF Doc No. 45, Stipulation & Rejection). Second, the stipulation violates Part II (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart D (Adjournments), §3. It provides: §3. Contents of applications for adjournments and stipulations of adjournment. Applications for adjournments and stipulations of adjournment must include all of the following: (a) complete caption (including any third-party actions), (b) motion Sequence Number(s) and relief sought, (c) motion calendar date, (d) identify party seeking the adjournment and said party’s good-cause reason therefor, (e) details of any prior adjournments of the motion, and (f) details of future motion calendar dates with Motion Sequence No. and relief sought for other sequenced motions in the case. Adjournments will be to the next available date convenient to the Court. Therefore, any reference to a date in a stipulation or adjournment application has no binding effect. (https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml [last accessed Jun. 14, 2024].) The stipulation neither identified which party sought the adjournment nor a good-cause reason for it. Also, the stipulation ignored the provisions in §3 which require that details of any prior adjournments of the motion and details of future motions be set forth. These rules exist so that IAS Part 2 can review motions scheduled for oral argument in advance, all the while adjourn motions where the parties seek an adjournment sufficiently in time so that the motion papers will not get reviewed. If the Court does not receive timely notice of a requested adjournment, it will end up reviewing a motion which will not be heard, thus wasting valuable time. Content requirements for adjournment requests enhance the Court’s ability to make informed determinations on an adjournment requests. (3) Motion for Default Judgment Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is DENIED for violating three of this Court’s IAS Part 2 Rules. First, Plaintiff violated Part II (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart B (Papers), §19. It provides: §19. Previously electronically-filed documents. Where reference is made to a previously electronically-filed document, said document must be submitted as an exhibit on the motion (https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/2jd/kings/civil/MaslowRules.shtml [last accessed Jun. 14, 2024]). Plaintiff’s affirmation in support of the motion for default judgment refers to four previously filed documents (see NYSCEF Doc No. 37, Affirmation in Support
