Dougherty v. Galbraith

215 A.D. 747
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We are of opinion that plaintiff’s original complaint stated causes of action for negligence and nuisance, and that she might upon the trial have recovered on either theory, depending upon the nature of her proof. However, the plaintiff has asked to amend to amplify the allegations of the complaint as to nuisance. Having complied with the terms imposed, we think she is entitled to make such amendment. If the moving papers were technically defective it does not appear that the question was raised at Special Term, but defendant seems to have opposed the motion only on the merits. Under the circumstances, we will not consider the objections when raised here for the first time. All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Davis, Sears and Taylor, JJ. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Dougherty v. Galbraith, 215 A.D. 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

215 A.D. 747 (Dougherty v. Galbraith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Allen v. Hungarian Mother's Club, Inc.
259 A.D. 139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)