Case ID: misc_126/html/0584-01.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

Frederick Birmberg, Appellant, v. Louis I. Isquith, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 8, 1926.
    Motions and orders — denial bars new application.
    The denial of an identical motion by a justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, in the absence of leave to renew, bars a new application.
    • Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District, after a previous order had been denied.
    
      Emanuel Morganlander, for the appellant.
   Per Curiam.

The identical motion having previously been denied by a justice of the New York City Municipal Court without leave to renew it could not be brought on again. (Goldenberg v. Adler, 123 N. Y. Supp. 387.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and judgment reinstated.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.