In SKR Design Group, Inc. v. Louise Avidon (32 AD3d 697 [2006]), the Court stated that: ... the court's failure to grant adjournment to permit defense counsel to recover from surgery was improvident exercise of discretion in absence of any indication by plaintiff that it would have been prejudiced by delay in commencement of trial.... In the absence of any indication by plaintiff, even at this late juncture, that it would have been prejudiced by a delay in the commencement of trial, we discern no reason for the failure to grant a sufficient adjournment to permit defendant's counsel to recover from surgery. As an initial consideration, once a judicial proceeding has commenced, the judge to whom a case is assigned has exclusive jurisdiction over its conduct and may not delegate or surrender judicial authority over such issues as adjournments .... Therefore, it was incumbent upon Supreme Court to make a de novo determination of the merits of defendant's adjournment request.