Case Name: Averell v. Barber et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-18
Citations: 18 N.Y.S. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: Averell v. Barber et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 18
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
Averell v. Barber et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term,, First Department.
February 18, 1892.)
Motion for Reargument—Jurisdiction of Special Term.
After the denial of a motion at a special term of the supreme court, a motion for reargument may be made at the special term for the hearing of non-enumerated motions; and the fact that the justice who denied the original motion is not presiding when the motion for reargument is made is no ground for denying the application. Van Brunt, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term.
Action by William W. Averell against Amzi L. Barber and others. From-an order denying a motion for reargument and resettlement of a previous order entered in the action, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
For former report,, see 6N. Y. Supp. 255.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Barrett and Andrews, JJ.
Wm. W. Niles, and Wm. W. Niles, Jr., (A. 8. Worthington, of counsel,) for appellants. Fullerton & Rushmore, (C. E. Rushmore, of counsel,) for ■respondent.

Opinion:
Barrett, J.
I am unable to concur with the presiding justice in the conelusion 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 Hiappen 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 reasons 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 was 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.