Case Name: William W. Averell, Resp't, v. Amzi L. Barber et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-18
Citations: 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 542
Docket Number: 
Parties: William W. Averell, Resp’t, v. Amzi L. Barber et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 44
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
William W. Averell, Resp’t, v. Amzi L. Barber et al., App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed February 18, 1892.)
Motions and orders—Reargument.
A motion for reargument of a motion previously denied is properly made at a suecial term for the hearing of non-enumerated motions ; and the fact that the justice who decided the original motion does not happen to preside will not justify either a denial or dismissal of the application. The proper course in such case is to refer the application to the justice who heard the original motion, or defer its hearing until he presides at. special term.
(Van Brunt, P. J., dissents.)
- Appeal from order of special term denying motion for reargument and resettlement of a previous order.
Wm. W. Niles and Wm. W. Niles, Jr. -, (A. 8. Worthington, of counsel), for app’lts; 0. B. JRushmore, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barrett, J.
I am unable to concur with the ¡¿residing justice in the conclusion arrived at upon this appeal. The motion for a reargument was properly made at the regular special term for the hearing of non-enumerated motions. There was no other-term for which it could properly be noticed. The fact that the learned justice who decided the original motion did not happen to preside.when the motion for a reargument was brought on did not justify either a denial or a dismissal of the application. _ I entirely agree that the application should not have been entertained by the learned justice who then did preside (for the reasohs well, stated by the presiding justice), but that was no reason why the-applicant should be refused the hearing to which he was entitled-He ivas not applying to any particular justice, but to the- court, and his application should not have been denied or dismissed because the justice who should properly have heard him did not happen to be sitting. The proper course would have been to-refer the application to the justice who decided the original motion sought to be reargued, or to defer the hearing until that justice should preside at the regular special term for the hearing, of non-enumerated motions. The order appealed from should therefore be reversed, with costs.
Andrews, J., concurs.