Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

214 A.D. 800

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

DecidedJune 15, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D. 800 (Fitzpatrick v. Rogers) 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

Fitzpatrick v. Rogers, 214 A.D. 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

We are 5of opinion that by the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion to '.amend the answer upon the trial, defendant was foreclosed of a substantial defense to the action, and this calls for a reversal of the judgment. (Goldstein v. Schleifer, 209 App. Div. 899.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed on the law,- and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.

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

We are 5of opinion that by the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion to '.amend the answer upon the trial, defendant was foreclosed of a substantial defense to the action, and this calls for a reversal of the judgment. (Goldstein v. Schleifer, 209 App. Div. 899.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed on the law,- and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D. 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-rogers-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack