Plitt v. Illinois Surety Co.

165 A.D. 973, 150 N.Y.S. 756
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 165 A.D. 973 (Plitt v. Illinois Surety Co.) 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
Plitt v. Illinois Surety Co., 165 A.D. 973, 150 N.Y.S. 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

Scott, J.:

It is a well-established rule, which in our opinion should not be departed from, that no motion for leave to serve an amended or supplemental pleading should be granted unless the motion papers include a copy of the pleading which it is desired to serve. The only exception to this rule is when the proposed amendment is purely formal and of a character which does not affect the issues. No such proposed pleading was served in the present case and the motion for that reason should have been denied. Even if the motion papers had been sufficient to warrant the granting of the motion, the terms imposed were quite inadequate. The deshed amendment, so far as we can judge of its character by the papers before us, completely changed the cause of action, and this, too, by reason of matters which the plaintiff should have known before the suit was originally commenced. In such a case substantial terms should be imposed. The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to renew upon proper papers and upon payment of said costs. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to renew as stated in opinion.

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

Related

Southern Boulevard Sound, Inc. v. Felix Storch, Inc.
165 Misc. 2d 341 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)
Walsam Fifth Avenue Development Co. v. Lions Gate Capital Corp.
163 Misc. 2d 1071 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)
Ft. Holding Corp. v. Otero
157 Misc. 2d 834 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1993)
Baer v. Jarzombek
153 Misc. 2d 351 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1992)
Williams v. Wilkerson
90 F.R.D. 168 (E.D. Virginia, 1981)
Manning v. Hyland
19 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp.
12 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Schwab v. Nathan
8 F.R.D. 227 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Voigt v. Johnson
175 A.D. 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 A.D. 973, 150 N.Y.S. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plitt-v-illinois-surety-co-nyappdiv-1914.