Keller v. Drattell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keller v. Drattell

264 A.D. 878, 35 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5219

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1942·Published

Opinion

Order denying appellant’s motion for leave to serve a proposed amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs, the proposed amended answer to be served within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Appellant seeks permission to serve an amended answer denying operation, management and control of a ear alleged to have been owned by defendant Strauss and operated by defendant Drattell. We are of opinion that the motion should have been granted in the absence of any showing that the plaintiff would be prejudiced by such amendment. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying appellant’s motion for leave to serve a proposed amended answer reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs, the proposed amended answer to be served within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Appellant seeks permission to serve an amended answer denying operation, management and control of a ear alleged to have been owned by defendant Strauss and operated by defendant Drattell. We are of opinion that the motion should have been granted in the absence of any showing that the plaintiff would be prejudiced by such amendment. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Keller v. Drattell, 264 A.D. 878, 35 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

264 A.D. 878 (Keller v. Drattell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.