DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion (see Wolosin v. Campo, 256 A.D.2d 332; Matter of Alario v. DeMarco, 149 A.D.2d 587). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the request of the defendant's attorney for a one-day continuance to allow the defendant to present testimony. The defendant's attorney failed to provide an offer of proof that the defendant's alleged inability to appear was due to work obligations, as the defendant claimed, or regarding the materiality of the defendant's testimony.
The verdict as to damages did not deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c]; Semple v. New York City Tr. Auth., 301 A.D.2d 514; Ferrantello v. St. Charles Hosp. Rehabilitation Ctr., 275 A.D.2d 387).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.