Parkes v. Mayor of New York

59 N.Y.S. 286, 43 A.D. 617
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 1899·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

It is manifest that the court erred in granting this motion. The only affidavit was made by the plaintiff’s attorney, who has recently come into the case; and there is nothing to show what the knowledge of the plaintiff was in regard to the nature of his claim, or that he was not fully apprised of all his rights. It is a well-settled rule in applications of this description that the court must be informed as to the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff by his own affidavit. Even if this objection to' the granting of the motion did not exist, it would seem that an amendment of the kind attempted to be introduced in this case should not be permitted. The claim is not only extraordinary in its nature, but has no connection whatever with the cause of action set out in the complaint, and is totally at variance therewith. The plaintiff should be required to commence a new action if he desires to attempt the enforcement of a claim of the character set forth in the moving papers.

The order should he reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

Parkes v. Mayor of New York, 59 N.Y.S. 286, 43 A.D. 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

59 N.Y.S. 286 (Parkes v. Mayor of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fitzgerald Bros. Construction Co. v. State
188 Misc. 940 (New York State Court of Claims, 1947)
Quarantiello v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada
145 A.D. 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)