Legal Opinion
Klar v. City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 26, 1937Published
1Opinion of the CourtNoonan, J.
The motion is designated in the order to show cause as one for a reargument of a motion for the examination before trial of the individual defendant Krepestman. A reargument is always based upon the original papers. Here the moving affidavit contains facts not recited in the original affidavit. Therefore, the application may not be considered as one for a reargument. (Seletsky v. Third Ave. Ry. Co., 44 App. Div. 632; Conlen v. Rizer, 109 id. 537.) Treating it as a motion for leave to renew upon additional facts, I believe that the. decision heretofore made should not be *876disturbed. Concededly,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mullins v. . Siegel-Cooper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Tremblay v. . Harmony MillsNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Kessler v. North River Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Seletsky v. Third Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899