Oakdale Contracting Co. v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtTownley, J.
It is well settled that a party who desires to move for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence must do so promptly or must adequately explain any delays. Such a party must also show that the evidence was not available by the exercise of due diligence at the first trial. (See Thompson v. Welde, 27 App. Div. 186; People v. Prime, 208 id. 445.)
*495The evidence now claimed to be newly discovered existed at the time of the trial. The Osborne Drilling Corporation was then in existence, its records were available, and the identity of the men making the borings was easily obtainable by an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thompson v. WeldeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. BowersNew York Family Court · 1958
- Cizler v. CizlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
- Oakdale Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941