Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.

198 Misc. 912, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1506
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 198 Misc. 912 (Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 198 Misc. 912, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1506 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

Walter, J.

Motion for reargument brought on without permission is denied, with $10 costs, payable by the moving attorneys personally. Whether or not there should be a reargument is within the discretion of the judge who decided the motion and the Bar should understand by this time that leave of that judge to make the motion should first be obtained (1 Carmody on New York Practice, § 394; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Beacon Milling Co., 184 Misc. 187, 191; Sheehan v. Carvalho, 12 App. Div. 430). The proper practice is to submit to the judge who decided the motion a short affidavit setting forth the decision and the asserted ground for reargument and request an order to show cause. If on reading that affidavit the judge thinks there is reason for reargument he will sign the order to show cause. If he reach the contrary conclusion he will refuse it and the matter is ended without an expenditure of the time and labor necessary to put a motion on the calendar, have the parties answer on the return day, and then have the motion referred to the judge who heard the original motion. I think it appropriate also to remind the Bar that motions for reargument are altogether too frequent and that they should not be made unless founded on papers showing that ‘ some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by counsel has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute or a controlling decision to which the attention of the court was not drawn through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel ” (Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 N. Y. 651, 652; People v. Patrick, 183 N. Y. 52, 53).

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

Related

Mulder v. A.S. Goldman & Co.
183 Misc. 2d 505 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
Rubin v. Dondysh
147 Misc. 2d 221 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1990)
American Trading Co. v. Fish
87 Misc. 2d 193 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
People v. Jenkins
39 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.
34 Misc. 2d 1008 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
In re Huie
2 Misc. 2d 40 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Fixel v. Fixel
207 Misc. 250 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
De Windt v. O'Leary
118 F. Supp. 915 (S.D. New York, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 Misc. 912, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-central-hanover-bank-trust-co-nysupct-1951.