
    Craig Robins v Harry Karp et al.
   Motion for reargument denied. Concur Ross, J. P., Lynch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Silverman, J.,

amends his concurring memorandum (98 AD2d 671) so as to substitute for the last three sentences the following: “At the time I wrote my original concurring memorandum I had overlooked the fact that a transcript of the testimony had been furnished us. However, I am not persuaded that we should overrule the findings of fact of the Trial Judge based upon testimony by witnesses who appeared before the Trial Judge.”  