Alber v. Harris
This text of 126 A.D. 504 (Alber v. Harris) 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.
Opinion
We think the learned court at Special Term correctly vacated the order of arrest against the defendant because of the insufficiency of the moving papers. It may be conceded that it was proper to use the verified complaint as an affidavit as the appellant insists. It is there alleged positively, and not upon information and belief, [505]*505that the defendant did violently, maliciously and willfully assault and attack this plaintiff and kick and beat him. But accompanying this complaint, on the application for the order of arrest, was an affidavit made by the guardian ad litem, who verified the complaint, in which substantially the same allegations are made, and the affiant there states that he “ derives his information from the statements of the said infant plaintiff and one Howard Manchester.” When we take the allegations of the complaint and the allegations of the affidavit together, as we must, it is altogether clear that the affiant has no personal knowledge of the statements made by him positively in the complaint, and that his source of information in relation thereto is the statements of the infant and the said Howard Manchester. There was, therefore, no legal evidence before the court justifying the order of. arrest. The entire matter rested on hearsay, and neither the affidavits of Manchester nor of the infant plaintiff were produced, nor the absence of such affidavits explained. Neither is it shown what either of these persons communicated to the affiant. The court, therefore, was without any competent evidence to justify the granting of the order, and it was properly vacated on the moving papers on the defendant’s motion.
The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
126 A.D. 504, 110 N.Y.S. 645, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alber-v-harris-nyappdiv-1908.