In re Rzepecka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rzepecka

284 A.D. 867, 134 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 1954·Published

Opinion

. Appeal dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We are of the opinion that the order denying a reargument is not appealable and therefore the appeal must be dismissed on that ground. (8 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, § 34, p. 519; Di Martino v. Di Martino, 277 App. Div. 891; Bendon Holding Corp. v. Rodner, 242 App. Div. 233, 237; Weiss v. Weiss, 225 App. Div. 700; Gaston Koch & Co. v. Julette Improvement Co., 136 Misc. 55.) We have also examined the record of the appeal on the merits and are of the opinion that were the appeal so presented and considered we would affirm the order denying reargument. All concur. (Appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a rehearing of a habeas corpus proceeding as a result of which petitioner’s writ was dismissed and the child awarded to the custody of the respondents.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See post, p. 1030.]

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

. Appeal dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We are of the opinion that the order denying a reargument is not appealable and therefore the appeal must be dismissed on that ground. (8 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, § 34, p. 519; Di Martino v. Di Martino, 277 App. Div. 891; Bendon Holding Corp. v. Rodner, 242 App. Div. 233, 237; Weiss v. Weiss, 225 App. Div. 700; Gaston Koch & Co. v. Julette Improvement Co., 136 Misc. 55.) We have also examined the record of the appeal on the merits and are of the opinion that were the appeal so presented and considered we would affirm the order denying reargument. All concur. (Appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application for a rehearing of a habeas corpus proceeding as a result of which petitioner’s writ was dismissed and the child awarded to the custody of the respondents.) Present — Vaughan, J. P., Kimball, Piper, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See post, p. 1030.]

In re Rzepecka, 284 A.D. 867, 134 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

284 A.D. 867 (In re Rzepecka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related