Case ID: ny-st-rep_75/html/1514-04.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

Weldon et al., Appellants, v. De Lisle et al., Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
    June, 1896.)
    Motion denied.
   Per Curiam.

—This, case was submitted on the 14th of March, 1896. Appellant now moves for a reargument, and one of the reasons urged is that the case was submitted instead of being argued orally. Upon an examination of all the grounds urged for reargument, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made a case entitling him to a reargument according to well-established rules applicable to motions for reargument.Mount v. Mitchell, 33 N. Y. 703 ; Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N. Y. 67; Bank v. Hunsiker, 73 N. Y. 252; Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 136 N. Y. 651. In the course of the examination of the case upon the merits, the court had occasion to refer to Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 336, and Clapp v. Town of Ellington, 87 Hun, 543; and it reached the conclusion that the question involved and passed upon by the referee was one of fact. Vega v. French, 79 Hun, 364; Town of Corning v. Head, 86 Hun, 14 ; Devlin v. Bank, 135 N. Y. 756. Nothing is found in the motion papers submitted for reargument which is sufficient to induce the court to grant the motion.