Legal Opinion

Oakdale Contracting Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 31, 1941PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Thompson v. WeldeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. BowersNew York Family Court · 1958
  2. Cizler v. CizlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
  3. Oakdale Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API