Siegman v. Keeler
This text of 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 897 (Siegman v. Keeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A motion for reargument is allowed only where it appears that some question decisive of the case, and which was presented by counsel upon the argument, has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is inconsistant with some statute, or with a coni rolling decision, to which the attention of the court was not drawn, through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel. Rule 16, Gen. Term Com. PI. N. Y. The opinion handed down at the time of the decision of the appeal herein (4 Misc. Rep. 528 ; 59 St. Rep. 125;) refutes the claim that either of the grounds above specified exists, and the plain purport of this motion is no other than to secure a second hearing upon the same points and facts which have been exhaustively examined and discussed in the opinion of the court. Motion for reargument denied, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 N.Y. St. Rep. 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegman-v-keeler-nyctcompl-1893.