Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co.

24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2984

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 893 (Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer 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

Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co., 24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud and deceit [894]*894etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 30, 1965, which denied plaintiff’s “ motion for leave to reargue ” defendant’s motion to vacate the service of the summons, previously decided in defendant’s favor (see 22 A D 2d 1018). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the plaintiff’s motion, denominated as a " motion for leave to reargue ” was, in fact, a motion for leave to renew, the denial of which is appealable (Drinkwater v. Grady, 285 App. Div. 1176). It is our further opinion, however, that the motion was properly denied on the ground that the alleged newly discovered evidence would not, in any event, have produced a different result. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Babin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for fraud and deceit [894]*894etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 30, 1965, which denied plaintiff’s “ motion for leave to reargue ” defendant’s motion to vacate the service of the summons, previously decided in defendant’s favor (see 22 A D 2d 1018). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the plaintiff’s motion, denominated as a " motion for leave to reargue ” was, in fact, a motion for leave to renew, the denial of which is appealable (Drinkwater v. Grady, 285 App. Div. 1176). It is our further opinion, however, that the motion was properly denied on the ground that the alleged newly discovered evidence would not, in any event, have produced a different result. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Babin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 893, 264 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suffolk-nassau-amusement-co-v-wurlitzer-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack