Case ID: ny-st-rep_45/html/0049-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. John Ward, App’lt, v. Henry D. Purroy et al., Fire Com’rs, Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
      Filed March 7, 1892.)
    
    Appeal—Reargument.
    To entitle a party to a reargument of an appeal it must be made to appear that some question decisive of the case, and which was presented by counsel on the argument, has been overlooked by the court; or that the decision is inconsistent with some statute or with a controlling decision to which the attention of the court was not called through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel.
    Appellants motion for reargument of the appeal.
    
      L. J. Grant, for motion; W. L. Findley, opposed.
   Per Curiam.

To entitle appellant to reargument of the appeal herein it must be made to appear that some question decisive of the case, and which was presented by counsel upon the argument, has been overlooked by the court; or, that the decision is inconsistent with some statute, or with a controlling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel (Rule 16 of the general term of this court), and as there is not even a pretense that either of the foregoing grounds exists, this motion must be denied.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs.

Bookstaver, Bischoff and Pryor, JJ., concur.