Curley v. Tomlinson
New York Court of Common Pleas
Motion for a reargumenfc of an appeal from a District ‘Court. The plaintiff had obtained judgment in a District Court, and, on appeal to this court, the judgment was reversed on the ■facts. The respondent then moved for a reargument, on the grounds that the case had been submitted by him, and not argued orally, and that the court had not properly understood the facts.
1Opinion of the Court
Daly, Chief Justice.
We have adopted, since the decision of Mount v. Mitchell (32 N. Y. 702), the same practice as the Court of Appeals in respect to motions for reargument, and have uniformly acted upon it since that decision was promulgated. Indeed, some such distinction had become indispensable ; for parties against whom decisions are rendered are rarely ¡satisfied, and generally hopeful that if they had another oppor*284tunity it would produce a different result. A considerable part of our business each term was the hearing of applications of this kind, and whilst there were occasionally…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mount v. . MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
3Cited by28 opinions
- Hand v. RogersAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896
- Heald v. MacGowanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1889
- Northridge v. AstaritaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Banks v. CarterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
- Brown v. SullivanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.