Recently, in Kornbleuth v. Westover, the Supreme Court decided two interesting issues, one dealing with the responsibilities of counsel, and one – the subject of a prior editorial – with the law of trespass. The case involved a suit between two neighbors; the defendant had allegedly committed trespass by cutting down the plaintiffs’ live “bamboo fence” between the properties. The trial court imposed sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel for declining to go forward with trial because his second chair and information technology assistant unexpectedly could not be present and he needed their assistance to use the electronic equipment needed to present plaintiffs’ case. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctions as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Designated counsel had asked for an adjournment on the day of trial because his trial assistant was ill and the IT associate was attending to his parents who were being admitted into the hospital. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, later reinstating it, and imposed sanctions on counsel to compensate for the delay. Reviewing the denial of a motion to reconsider the sanctions decision, the court noted that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, parties are entitled to have their designated trial counsel represent them at trial. R.4:25-4. However, parties are not entitled to have other members of the trial team present to help that designee at trial if doing so would delay proceedings.” It concluded that neither the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint without prejudice when designated counsel “refused to proceed on the day of trial because he was not prepared to begin without the help of his second-chair and IT assistant,” despite IT help offered by the court, nor the imposition of a sanction of $8,500 upon reinstatement, constituted an abuse of discretion.