
    ZABLUDOWSKY v. GOTTFRIED.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    July 31, 1916.)
    Appeal and Error <§=1185—Reaegument—Vacation oe Former Judgment.
    Where the point that the evidence sustained the trial court’s finding that the accord and satisfaction involved was fraudulently obtained was not sufficiently urged in the briefs and escaped the attention of the appellate court, its order reversing the judgment for plaintiff will be vacated and the judgment affirmed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4636-4641; Dec. Dig. <§=1185.]
    @z^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes-
    On plaintiff’s motion for a reargument of the defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the municipal court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of plaintiff. Order reversing the judgment vacated, and judgment affirmed.
    For former opinion, see 95 Mise. Rep. 623, 159 N. Y. Supp. 785.
    Argued June term, 1916, before GUY, BIJUR, and PHIEBIN, JJ.
    Goldstein & Goldstein, of New York City, for appellant.
    Charles S. Rosenberg, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Motion for reargument granted. A further examination of the record herein on the rehearing granted discloses the fact that the decision of the court below is based on the determination of the question of fact as to whether the alleged accord and satisfaction was obtained by false and fraudulent representations as to the insolvency of the defendant. The evidence is ample to sustain the-finding of the trial court that the accord and satisfaction was thus-fraudulently obtained. This point was not sufficiently urged in the briefs and escaped the attention of the appellate court.

The order reversing the judgment must therefore be vacated, and the judgment affirmed, with $25 costs.  