Silverman v. Berson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman v. Berson

280 A.D. 854, 113 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900

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

DecidedJune 13, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 854 (Silverman v. Berson) 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

Silverman v. Berson, 280 A.D. 854, 113 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence in an action tried in Sullivan County. As far as can be determined from the moving papers, the proposed new evidence consists of conclusions of a witness, rather than facts. The proposed new evidence was available to plaintiffs long before trial and should have been known by them under the circumstances present. There is an utter failure to show that the proposed new evidence was not and could not have been discovered before trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence. There must be some finality to litigation. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence in an action tried in Sullivan County. As far as can be determined from the moving papers, the proposed new evidence consists of conclusions of a witness, rather than facts. The proposed new evidence was available to plaintiffs long before trial and should have been known by them under the circumstances present. There is an utter failure to show that the proposed new evidence was not and could not have been discovered before trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence. There must be some finality to litigation. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 854, 113 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-berson-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack