Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

214 A.D. 800

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

214 A.D. 800 (Fitzpatrick v. Rogers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related