Hinckley v. Paige
| Decision Date | 04 November 1957 |
| Citation | 4 A.D.2d 949,167 N.Y.S.2d 627 |
| Parties | George W. HINCKLEY, Jr., Frances Wunderlich, William Vitale, Mary Harte and Bernard Reisner, appellants, v. Joseph PAIGE, individually and as President of the Taxpayers and Parents League, respondent, and The Long Island Daily Press Publishing Co., Inc., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James W. Pares, New York City, for appellant.
No appearance or brief for respondent.
Before BELDOCK, Acting P. J., and MURPHY, UGHETTA, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for libel, the appeal is from (1) an order granting a motion by respondent to dismiss the complaint as to him for lack of prosecution, (2) the judgment entered thereon and (3) an order denying a motion by appellants for a rehearing on additional facts, designated by them as a motion for reargument.
Order denying motion for rehearing on additional facts reversed, without costs, and motion granted; on rehearing, motion to dismiss complaint as to respondent denied, and judgment vacated.
Appeal from order granting motion to dismiss complaint dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The motion by appellants was in fact an application for a rehearing upon additional papers. As such, the order entered thereon is appealable and the new matter may be considered (McNees v. Scholoff, 2 A.D.2d 820, 155 N.Y.S.2d 517; Gold v. Travelers Ins. Co., 263 App.Div. 817, 31 N.E.2d 580; Webb & Knapp v. United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp., 276 App.Div. 583, 96 N.Y.S.2d 359).
In our opinion, appellants have presented a showing of merits and a reasonable excuse for the delay. Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny them their day in court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wandschneider v. Bekeny
...a motion for a rehearing on additional facts which, in the exercise of discretion, may be entertained by the Court (Hinckley v. Paige,4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 627; Gold v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 263 App.Div. 817, 31 N.Y.S.2d 580; 2 A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civil Pract., 2221.03; 2 Ca......
-
Royal Business Funds Corp. v. Commercial Trading Co., Inc.
...that order was superseded by the order, entered December 22, 1976, denying reargument and implicitly denying renewal. (Hinckley v. Paige, 4 A.D.2d 949, 167 N.Y.S.2d 627). The appeal from the order, entered December 22, 1976, is an intermediate order that will be reviewed on the appeal from ......