It wasn’t William Shulman’s fault that one of his medical experts died and the other one retired in the months leading up to the trial of his client’s auto accident claim. But he shouldn’t have waited more than four months — and until the second trial date — to ask for added time to find a new witness.
For that reason the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing Shulman’s request for an adjournment and throwing out the case because he could not proceed without an expert, the Appellate Division ruled Wednesday in Pareja v. Hiromoto, A-4016-09.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
