Leslie R. Barth - Page 13

                                                - 13 -                                                  
                  In early January 1995, in a telephone conference call among                           
            the parties and the Court and Stephen R. Field (Field), an                                  
            attorney for petitioner who had not entered his appearance in                               
            this case, petitioner requested a continuance for the purpose of                            
            employing Field to represent him.  The Court advised petitioner                             
            that no continuance would be granted in view of the history of                              
            this case.                                                                                  
                  The case was called for trial on April 3, 1995, in New York                           
            City.  Respondent filed a Motion for Sanctions and a Motion to                              
            Dismiss for Failure Properly to Prosecute.  The Second                                      
            Stipulation of Facts executed by respondent and Ms. Barth was                               
            filed.  Petitioner arrived late and filed a Motion for                                      
            Continuance based upon the pendency of an appeal from his mail                              
            fraud conviction.  His Motion for Continuance was denied, and the                           
            Court stated that respondent's motions would be granted with                                
            respect to the deficiencies.  The Court indicated that the trial                            
            would proceed with respect to the fraud issues and those issues                             
            involving Ms. Barth.  The Court advised petitioner that he could                            
            testify but that he could not call any other witnesses because of                           
            his failure to file a trial memorandum or to have present those                             
            witnesses.  Petitioner thereafter testified that he would have                              
            called Timbie and Onofrio as witnesses, but he admitted that he                             
            had not taken any steps to produce them for the trial.                                      
                  Petitioner represented that he intended to employ Field as                            
            his attorney by April 30, 1995, and that he was in consultation                             

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011