Ellis v. CENT. HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1951 |
| Citation | 198 Misc. 912 |
| Parties | Evan Ellis, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Robert Satter for plaintiff.
Alex Gangel for defendant.
Motion for reargument brought on without permission is denied, with $10 costs, payable by the moving attorneys personally. Whether or not there should be a reargument is within the discretion of the judge who decided the motion and the Bar should understand by this time that leave of that judge to make the motion should first be obtained (1 Carmody on New York Practice, § 394; New York Central R. R. Co. v. Beacon Milling Co., 184 Misc. 187, 191; Sheehan v. Carvalho, 12 App. Div. 430). The proper practice is to submit to the judge who decided the motion a short affidavit setting forth the decision and the asserted ground for reargument and request an order to show cause. If on reading that affidavit the judge thinks there is reason for reargument he will sign the order to show cause. If he reach the contrary conclusion he will refuse it and the matter is ended without an expenditure of the time and labor necessary to put a motion on the calendar, have the parties answer on the return day, and then have the motion referred to the judge who heard the original motion. I think it appropriate also to remind the Bar that motions for reargument are altogether too frequent and that they should not be made unless founded on papers showing that "some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by counsel has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in conflict with the statute or a controlling decision to which the attention of the court was not drawn through the neglect or inadvertence of counsel" (Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 N.Y. 651, 652; People v. Patrick, 183 N.Y. 52, 53).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubin v. Dondysh
...194-195, 383 N.Y.S.2d 943; Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc., 34 Misc.2d 1008, 1009, 231 N.Y.S.2d 6; Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 198 Misc. 912, 913, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337). The approved procedure permits the Court, in the first instance, to determine whether there is a legitimate......
-
Application and Petition of Huie
... ... Central Trust Co. of Rochester, 226 App.Div. 486, 487, 235 N.Y.S. 511, ... 70, 149 N.Y.S. 447; Hagen v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 100 App.Div. 218, 91 N.Y.S. 914; ... The original decision is adhered to. Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N.Y. 67; Ellis v. Central Hanover ... ...
-
Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.
...entertained. (Bankers Commercial Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 21 Misc.2d 282, 193 N.Y.S.2d 916; Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 198 Misc. 912, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337.) Nevertheless, I shall state why, in my view, the application should be denied on the Section 61-b of the Gene......
-
De Windt v. O'LEARY
...and in the same stage of the proceedings shall be made only to the same judge or to the court. * * *" 3 Ellis v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 198 Misc. 912, 102 N.Y.S.2d 337; New York Central R. Co. v. Beacon Milling Co., 184 Misc. 187, 53 N.Y.S.2d 405; 1 Carmody's New York Practice, §......