Simpson v. Loehmann
| Decision Date | 11 April 1968 |
| Citation | 290 N.Y.S.2d 914,21 N.Y.2d 990 |
| Parties | , 238 N.E.2d 319 William SIMPSON, as Father and Natural Guardian of Michael Simpson, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Fred LOEHMANN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Motion for reargument denied in the following memorandum: A motion for reargument is not an appropriate vehicle for raising new questions, such as those now urged upon us, which were not previously advanced either in this court or in the courts below. (See, e.g., Mississippi Shipbuilding Corp. v. Lever Bros. Co., 237 N.Y. 565, 143 N.E. 744; Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck, 293 N.Y. 768, 57 N.E.2d 845; see, also, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 628, 694--696.) Indeed, the appellant now suggests a meaning and interpretation of the insurance policy (the subject of the attachment) which is inconsistent with that subscribed to and acquiesced in by him on the appeal proper and on which the case has heretofore been considered and decided. It would serve no useful purpose for us to entertain at this juncture arguments addressed to details relating to the coverage or noncoverage of that policy of insurance now pressed upon us for the first time.
Further, the appellant's argument based on the impact of CPLR 320 (subd. (c)), also asserted for the first time, fails to take account of the explicit statement in the court's opinion (21 N.Y.2d 305, 310, 287 N.Y.S.2d 633, 636, 234 N.E.2d 669, 671) that This, it is hardly necessary to add, means that there may not be any recovery against the defendant in this sort of case in an amount greater than the face value of such insurance policy even though he proceeds with the defense on the merits. Consideration of CPLR 320 (subd. (c)) and its effect in other types of action begun by attachment must, of course, await future cases.
Motion for reargument and for a stay denied in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Javorek v. Superior Court
...decision in Simpson v. Loehmann (1967), 21 N.Y.2d 305, 287 N.Y.S.2d 633, 234 N.E.2d 669, motion for reargument den., 21 N.Y.2d 990, 290 N.Y.S.2d 914, 238 N.E.2d 319. There an infant, resident of New York, had been injured in Connecticut by the propeller of a boat owned by the defendant, a r......
-
Rush v. Savchuk
...process challenge in Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 305, 287 N.Y.S.2d 633, 234 N.E.2d 669 (1967), reargument denied, 21 N.Y.2d 990, 290 N.Y.S.2d 914, 238 N.E.2d 319 (1968). The New York court relied on Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023 (1905), in holding that the pre......
-
Rudetsky v. O'DOWD
...suggested in Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 305, 312, 287 N.Y.S.2d 633, 638, 234 N.E.2d 669, 672; mot. for rearg. den. 21 N.Y.2d 990, 290 N.Y.S.2d 914, 238 N.E.2d 319 that further study be given to the subject of forum non conveniens. And, a short time later, the State's Judicial Conference......
-
Rintala v. Shoemaker
... ... That court did not deal with the constitutionality of garnishment of insurance obligations in Seider but did pass on the question in Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 305, 287 N.Y.S.2d 633, 234 N.E.2d 669 (1967). A divided court found valid quasi in rem jurisdiction because (1) the insurer's ... ...
-
Part XXXVI Motions To Reargue And Renew Motions To Reargue And Renew
...law that would change the prior determination.’”)). [1617] . Barr et al., supra note 1, § 16:320, at 16-37 (citing Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 990, 990, 290 N.Y.S.2d 914, 915, 238 N.E.2d 319, 319 (1968) (“A motion for reargument is not an appropriate vehicle for raising new questions, su......