Case Name: HART et al. v. KAPLAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-12-11
Citations: 101 N.Y.S. 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: HART et al. v. KAPLAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 101
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
HART et al. v. KAPLAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 11, 1906.)
1. Appeal—Reargument—Appealable Obdeb.
An order granting a motion for a reargument is not appealable.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, § 745.]
2. New Triai^-Discretiok—Costs.
Where an order granting a new trial was largely discretionary, costs should have been imposed as a condition to the granting thereof.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, New Trial, §§ 322, 323.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.
Action by Frieda Hart and another against Louis Kaplan. From certain orders in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Order affirmed, on condition.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, FITZGERALD, and DAVIS, JJ.
Isadore M. Levy, for appellant.
Sachs & Levy, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from order granting motion for reargument dismissed, with $10 costs; the order not being appealable.
The order granting a new trial, appealed from, was largely discretionary, and we do not feel that it should be reversed. Costs should have been imposed, however, as a condition for its being granted.
Order affirmed, upon condition that the plaintiffs, within five days after the entry and service of a copy of this order, pay to the defendant $10'costs of the motion (section 254, Mun. Ct. Act [Laws 1902, p. 1563,, c. 580]) and costs of this appeal; otherwise, order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated.