Breisacher v. McAuley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Breisacher v. McAuley

130 N.Y.S. 137

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 12, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 130 N.Y.S. 137 (Breisacher v. McAuley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breisacher v. McAuley, 130 N.Y.S. 137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

Action against defendant, a police officer, for trespass and advising plaintiff’s tenants to remove from plaintiff’s building. The defendant answered, denying all trespass or defamation. The [138]*138amended complaint added allegations of express malice,' characterizations of the alleged defamatory matter, and allegations of special damages.

The substitution of a new attorney for the plaintiff lends some support to the plaintiff’s claim that her former attorney did not question her with sufficient particularity when he drew the original complaint. There is, however, evidence of loches and neglect to prosecute. If the amendment is allowed to stand, the plaintiff should pay the taxable costs to date, including the costs of this appeal. Kerrigan v. Peters, 108 App. Div. 292, 95 N. Y. Supp. 723; Bruns v. Brooklyn Citizen, 98 App. Div. 316, 90 N. Y. Supp. 701; Rosenberg v, Feiering, 124 App. Div. 522, 523, 108 N. Y. Supp. 941.

Order modified, so as to provide for payment by plaintiff of all taxable costs to date, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. All concur.

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

GUY, J.

Action against defendant, a police officer, for trespass and advising plaintiff’s tenants to remove from plaintiff’s building. The defendant answered, denying all trespass or defamation. The [138]*138amended complaint added allegations of express malice,' characterizations of the alleged defamatory matter, and allegations of special damages.

The substitution of a new attorney for the plaintiff lends some support to the plaintiff’s claim that her former attorney did not question her with sufficient particularity when he drew the original complaint. There is, however, evidence of loches and neglect to prosecute. If the amendment is allowed to stand, the plaintiff should pay the taxable costs to date, including the costs of this appeal. Kerrigan v. Peters, 108 App. Div. 292, 95 N. Y. Supp. 723; Bruns v. Brooklyn Citizen, 98 App. Div. 316, 90 N. Y. Supp. 701; Rosenberg v, Feiering, 124 App. Div. 522, 523, 108 N. Y. Supp. 941.

Order modified, so as to provide for payment by plaintiff of all taxable costs to date, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.Y.S. 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breisacher-v-mcauley-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack