The motion for a reargument should be denied. The main question for reargument presented by the moving party relates to the failure of the court to discuss the status of the defendant the Poughkeepsie Savings Bank in respect of the cause of action set forth in the complaint. If the prevailing opinion were in error upon this point, it would furnish no ground for a reargument. In fact, it clearly appeared that the point was considered .by the court, as it was referred to in the dissenting opinion of the presiding justice. It is evident, therefore, that the question was not overlooked, and under the authority of Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702, no ground for a re-argument appears in this regard. The omission of the prevailing opinion to discuss this question does not affect it, nor does it show that the point was necessarily overlooked. Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 N. Y. 651, 27 N. E. 382. If it were otherwise, the point would not be available to the demurring defendant. The Poughkeepsie Savings Bank does not demur to the complaint, and, so far as tiie demurring defendant is concerned, the complaint states a good
The motion should be denied. All concur.