Galm v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galm v. Sullivan

117 A.D. 235, 101 N.Y.S. 1060, 38 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 112, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 227

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D. 235 (Galm v. Sullivan) 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

Galm v. Sullivan, 117 A.D. 235, 101 N.Y.S. 1060, 38 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 112, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Laughlin, J.:

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant. After the defendant answered and noticed the case for trial, and placed it upon the calendar, the plaintiff settled Ins claim with the defendant and executed a release of his cause of action. The defendant thereafter and within the time within Which he was authorized to amend his answer as of course, and without leave of the court, served an alleged amended answer, setting up the release as a- defense.. It is manifest that this defense, arising after the original answer was served, could only be interposed by leave of the court and in the form of a supplemental answer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 544.)

.It follows that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, - Clarke and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Laughlin, J.:

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant. After the defendant answered and noticed the case for trial, and placed it upon the calendar, the plaintiff settled Ins claim with the defendant and executed a release of his cause of action. The defendant thereafter and within the time within Which he was authorized to amend his answer as of course, and without leave of the court, served an alleged amended answer, setting up the release as a- defense.. It is manifest that this defense, arising after the original answer was served, could only be interposed by leave of the court and in the form of a supplemental answer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 544.)

.It follows that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, - Clarke and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D. 235, 101 N.Y.S. 1060, 38 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R. 112, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galm-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1907.