De Rosa v. Underhill Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Rosa v. Underhill Construction Corp.

18 A.D.2d 938, 238 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 938 (De Rosa v. Underhill Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Rosa v. Underhill Construction Corp., 18 A.D.2d 938, 238 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1961, denying his motion for a rehearing and reargument of his prior application, made pursuant to (former) rule 9 of the rules for said court, for a preference in trial, which had been denied. Order affirmed, without costs. The present motion, while characterized by plaintiff as one for “reargument,” actually was a new motion based upon new facts and additional papers. An order made upon such a motion is appealable. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1961, denying his motion for a rehearing and reargument of his prior application, made pursuant to (former) rule 9 of the rules for said court, for a preference in trial, which had been denied. Order affirmed, without costs. The present motion, while characterized by plaintiff as one for “reargument,” actually was a new motion based upon new facts and additional papers. An order made upon such a motion is appealable. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 938, 238 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-rosa-v-underhill-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1963.