MIRZOEFF v. NAGAR

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A request for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion ( see Atwater v Mace, 39 AD3d 573, 574). Further, although courts will routinely afford pro se litigants, as the defendants were throughout the trial, some latitude, a "litigant's decision to proceed without counsel does not confer any greater rights than those afforded to other litigants, nor may a pro se appearance serve to deprive parties in opposition of their right to a fair trial" ( Sloninski v Weston, 232 AD2d 913, 914; see Banushi v Lambrakos, 305 AD2d 524). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' request for an adjournment ( see Stoves Stones v Rubens, 237 AD2d 280; Natoli v Natoli, 234 AD2d 591, 592).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.