N.J. Law Journal Reports today:
It wasn’t William Shulman’s fault that one of his medical experts died and the other one retired in the months leading up to the trial of his client’s auto accident claim. But he shouldn’t have waited more than four months — and until the second trial date — to ask for added time to find a new witness. For that reason the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing Shulman’s request for an adjournment and throwing out the case because he could not proceed without an expert, the Appellate Division ruled Wednesday in Pareja v. Hiromoto, A-4016-09. Shulman would have been entitled to reopen discovery had he acted soon after learning of Bello’s withdrawal on account of exceptional circumstances. But the exceptional nature of the circumstances “deteriorated” due to Shulman’s nearly five months of inaction, the appeals court said.