Case Name: Joseph B. Bloomingdale et al., Respondents, v. Henry Steubing, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-11
Citations: 10 Misc. 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph B. Bloomingdale et al., Respondents, v. Henry Steubing, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
Joseph B. Bloomingdale et al., Respondents, v. Henry Steubing, Appellant.
(City Court of New York
General Term,
November, 1894.)
Where an order setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial expresses the decision as rendered, a refusal of a motion for resettlement is proper. If there was an error in granting the order or in failing to impose proper terms, it can he reviewed on appeal from the original order.
Appeal by the defendant from an order denying resettlement of order setting aside verdict, etc.
Quggenheimer, Untermeyer & Marshall, for appellant.
D. S. Ritterba/nd, for respondents.

Opinion:
Ehblich, Ch. J.
The jury at the trial having rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for six cents damages, the trial judge, upon his minutes, set the same aside as inadequate.
The defendant moved to resettle the order so that the new trial granted should be on the condition that the plaintiffs pay to the defendant the costs of the trial which resulted in the verdict.
The trial judge refused to resettle the order, and the defendant appeals.
We think the trial judge was under no obligation to resettle the order as requested.
The order as originally made expressed the decision as he rendered it, so that resettlement was unnecessary.
If any error was committed in granting the original order or in failing to impose proper terms thereon, it might have been reviewed on appeal from the original order without the necessity of appealing from the order declining to resettle.
For this reason the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Van Wyok and MoCabthy, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.