Case Name: William H. Israel, Respondent, v. August Ury, Mark Mendelson and Alfred Mendelson, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-02
Citations: 52 Misc. 523
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Israel, Respondent, v. August Ury, Mark Mendelson and Alfred Mendelson, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
William H. Israel, Respondent, v. August Ury, Mark Mendelson and Alfred Mendelson, Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1907.)
ew trial — Procedure to procure new trial — Order granting new trial — Must specify grounds.
A statement in an order granting a new trial of the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made is not a sufficient compliance with Rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice which requires the order to specify the grounds on which it was granted.
Appeal by the defendants from an order of the City Court the city of Mew York, denying a motion to resettle an ■der granting a new trial.
Edgar Hirschberg (T. Channon Press, of counsel), for >pellants.
Sanders & Feltenstein (Moses Feltenstein, of counsel), r respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The issues were tried before the court and jury and a verdict rendered for defendants. A motion was made to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. This motion was granted without costs. A subsequent motion was made by defendants to resettle said order by inserting the grounds upon which the order was granted. This motion for a resettlement was denied, and from the order entered thereon the defendants appeal. The original order states that " the said Justice, immediately after the rendition of the said verdict, having entertained a motion made on his minutes on behalf of plaintiff to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, to be granted on the exceptions taken on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial and upon all the grounds set forth in section 999 of the Code, except that the verdict was excessive, because the verdict was contrary to the law and contrary to the evidence, and after hearing Ordered," etc. The grounds upon which the motion was made sufficiently appear in the order, but the ground or grounds upon which it was granted are not specified. Rule 31 of the General Rules of Practice provides: "Where an order grants or refuses a new trial, except on the exceptions taken during the trial, it shall specify the grounds upon which the motion was made and the ground or grounds upon which it was granted." • The learned court below has written an opinion which the Appellate Court will consider in order to ascertain the reason of the court below for granting the application to set aside the verdict and allow a new trial. Bryant v. Allen, 54 App. Div. 504. It appears clearly from this opinion that the verdict was set aside as contrary to the evidence, and not on exceptions taken during the trial. The order appealed from comes within the provisions of Rule 31, and the failure to recite the grounds upon which it was granted warrants a reversal.-
The order is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to resettle is granted, with ten dollars costs.
Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Ambito, JJ.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to resettle granted, with ten dollars costs.