From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Camacho v. Burgos

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Sep 3, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 680 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

September 3, 1958

Murry J. Cohen for plaintiff.

Samuel S. Ress for defendants.



All of the issues raised by the moving papers were disposed of by the court in its decision dated June 3, 1958. The attempt by defendants at this time merely to attribute a motive to certain acts of plaintiff which were brought to the attention of the court upon the trial of the action does not constitute newly discovered evidence. Likewise, there is no merit to defendants' contention that the injunction issued by the court could not properly extend beyond April 24, 1958, a date prior to the conclusion of the trial. It is fundamental that a court of equity speaks as of the date of its final decree and may grant such relief at that time as may then be indicated by the circumstances peculiar to the particular situation before the court ( De Marco v. Paramount Ice Corp., 102 N.Y.S.2d 692, 697; Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 129 N.Y. 274, 279-283; Sadlier v. City of New York, 185 N.Y. 408). Defendants' remedy, if any, is by appeal. Accordingly, this motion to set aside the decision of the court and for a new trial, pursuant to section 552 of the Civil Practice Act, in all respects is denied.


Summaries of

Camacho v. Burgos

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Sep 3, 1958
14 Misc. 2d 680 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Camacho v. Burgos

Case Details

Full title:MAXIMILLO CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v. JUAN BURGOS et al., Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Sep 3, 1958

Citations

14 Misc. 2d 680 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
183 N.Y.S.2d 445

Citing Cases

Snyder v. Greenblatt

As the loss of profit claimed by the plaintiffs has not been adequately shown to be the result of Woodbury…