Legal Opinion
Hamilton Park Builders Corp. v. Rogers
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 17, 1956PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNicholas M. Pette, J.
Motion by defendant for leave to reargue his motion under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment on the pleadings and for a dismissal of each cause of action in the complaint for insufficiency, which motion was heretofore denied by this court, is hereby granted.
The law is well settled that the purpose of reargument is merely to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law, which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked; or that there has been a misapprehension of the facts. (Bolles v. Duff, 56 Barb. 567, 574; Banks v.…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Schoonmaker v. . HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Long v. . WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Cambridge Valley Bank v. . DelanoNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Fox v. HirschfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Irvmor Corp. v. RodewaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Todd v. Pearl Woods, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Commission on Ecumenical Mission & Relations of the United Presbyterian Church v. Roger Gray, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Sloan Foundation, Inc. v. AtlasNew York Supreme Court · 1964
- Goldberg v. Spruce Ridge Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Weiland v. BernsteinNew York Supreme Court · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.