
    Henry Muhlker, Respondent and Appellant, v. The New York and Harlem Railroad Company et al., Appellants and Respondents.
    (Submitted October 2, 1905;
    decided October 24, 1905.)
    Motion for leave to move for reargument. (See 173 N. Y. 549.)
    The motion 'was made upon the grounds that the Court of Appeals had not considered the following contentions of the defendant upon- the original appeal:
    “ 1. That it was erroneous to hold the legal consequences resulting from tiie respective titles' of the plaintiff, • the defendants, and the city of New York, in relation to Park avenue in front of the premises in suit to be the same as those passed upon in the case of Lewis v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. (162 N. Y. 202).
    “ 2. That the admission of evidence as to condition and courses of values, on streets, other than Park avenue, in the vicinity of the premises in suit was erroneous.
    “ 3. That the allowance of interest on rental damages from February 16, 1897, was erroneous.”
   Per Curiam.

The alleged errors for which the defendants ask for a reargument of the case in this court were considered by us before our decision of the appeal and none of them deemed tenable or of sufficient importance to justify a reversal of the judgment below. This statement is subject to one qualification. There does seem to have been an error in the date from which the trial court allowed interest upon the damages awarded by it. No point, however, was made as to this error by the defendants on the hearing of the appeal, nor can we find any exception in the record that properly raises it. If the defendants can be relieved from the effects of this error, which does not involve a very large sum, they must seek such relief by application to the Supreme Court.

The motion for reargument should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cullen, Oh. J., (Tray, O’Bbien; Baktlett, Haight, Vann and AYebneb, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.  