- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011