Ackerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackerman v. Goldstein

232 A.D. 839

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D. 839 (Ackerman v. Goldstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackerman v. Goldstein, 232 A.D. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order in so far as it denies motion to amend complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of section 105 of the Civil Practice Act. While the amendment may, upon a proper showing, be permitted, the issue tendered thereby must be the subject of a trial, and without a finding of fact that defendants’ representations were knowingly [840]*840false, the plaintiff would not be entitled to judgment. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order in so far as it denies motion to amend complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of section 105 of the Civil Practice Act. While the amendment may, upon a proper showing, be permitted, the issue tendered thereby must be the subject of a trial, and without a finding of fact that defendants’ representations were knowingly [840]*840false, the plaintiff would not be entitled to judgment. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D. 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1931.