In McLoughlin v. Henke, 130 Misc 2d 1091 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1986], plaintiff's counsel had announced their readiness to proceed to trial at the Trial Calendar call on January 21, 1986 and were ordered by the Court to pick a jury on January 27, 1986. The jury selection took one day and at the end of the day, counsel advised the court that they were ready to proceed to trial. However, the next morning, when the trial was supposed to have begun, plaintiff's counsel requested that the jury be disbanded and the trial be adjourned for a number of weeks due to plaintiff's inability to attend the trial. In that case, unbeknownst to trial counsel, plaintiff had been hospitalized from a car accident. Recognizing that the fault was not plaintiff's in that instance, the Court granted the adjournment on the condition that the plaintiff pay $ 250 to opposing counsel and $ 500 to the Client's Security Fund of the State of New York. The McLoughlin court explained the difference in the current IAS practice as compared to prior practice insofar as under prior practice, the only person inconvenienced in such a situation would have been the opposing counsel since "this case would have been one of several wherein juries were being selected, and any trial parts coming open would have been assigned one of the other cases." (McLoughlin, supra, 130 Misc 2d at 1093). However, the court went onto explain that with the IAS system, the inconvenience transcends simply the inconvenience to opposing counsel: "this case has been thoroughly conferenced and found not be amenable to settlement. It has been set down for jury selection and trial in the expectation that it would occupy my part for a full week. In reliance upon counsel's representations that this case is ready for trial, no other cases had been scheduled for the next few days. A series of telephone calls revealed that no other cases on any Trial Calendar could be advanced from the scheduled dates on such short notice. Thus, counsel's inability to proceed left my part without a case on trial for three consecutive days. The essence of the individual assignments system is the continuous supervision of each case by a single Judge (22 NYCRR 202.3a). In order to manage his docket, each Judge is authorized to establish and control appropriate Trial Calendars (22 NYCRR 202.22). Judicial efficiency demands that, insofar as possible, each Judge should manage these calendars so as to have a case on trial at all times. Only in this way can maximal use be made of judicial resources, and the entire docket proceed as expeditiously as possible. No court can schedule cases for trial properly if counsel for the parties does not convey accurate information about the status of his case." (McLoughlin, 130 Misc 2d at 1093). Thus, in McLoughlin, because "the court was subjected to unnecessary, frustrating and wholly unavoidable delay in the movement of its calendar" a sanction directly payable to the court was proper since the conduct involved "an impairment of the court's 'efficient disposition of its business.'" (Id. at 1093-1094.)