Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.

29 A.D.2d 935, 291 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190

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

DecidedApril 23, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 935 (Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.) 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

Murray Oil Products Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 29 A.D.2d 935, 291 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to resettle this court’s order of July 11, 1967, is denied. On July 11, 1967 this court reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff on the law and the facts (28 A D 2d 839). In our opinion, in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals (21 NY 2d 440), this court’s reversal rests solely on the law. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and granted a new trial. The Court of Appeals did not remit the case to this court. The mandate of the Court of Appeals precludes the present application of plaintiff to resettle the order of July 11, 1967 to delete the reversal on the facts. Plaintiff is required to apply to the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur so as to enable this application. (See Litchfield Gonstr. Go. v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 369.) The Court of Appeals may remit the case to this court for further proceedings in the light of its decision. (See Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Motion to resettle this court’s order of July 11, 1967, is denied. On July 11, 1967 this court reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff on the law and the facts (28 A D 2d 839). In our opinion, in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals (21 NY 2d 440), this court’s reversal rests solely on the law. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and granted a new trial. The Court of Appeals did not remit the case to this court. The mandate of the Court of Appeals precludes the present application of plaintiff to resettle the order of July 11, 1967 to delete the reversal on the facts. Plaintiff is required to apply to the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur so as to enable this application. (See Litchfield Gonstr. Go. v. City of New York, 219 App. Div. 369.) The Court of Appeals may remit the case to this court for further proceedings in the light of its decision. (See Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 935, 291 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-oil-products-co-v-royal-exchange-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack