GRACO CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. EVES

Ordered that the amended supplemental judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the record does not reflect that the court overlooked a $10,000 payment to the respondent Graco Construction Corp. Moreover, the appellant William Eves was not entitled to a stay pursuant to CPLR 321 (c), since he voluntarily discharged his attorney on the first day of trial ( see, Levine v City of New York, 111 AD2d 785; Blondell v Malone, 91 AD2d 1201; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.