Reutemann v. Cosmopolitan Tourist Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reutemann v. Cosmopolitan Tourist Co.

279 A.D. 581, 107 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 581 (Reutemann v. Cosmopolitan Tourist 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

Reutemann v. Cosmopolitan Tourist Co., 279 A.D. 581, 107 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

It was held in Harriss v. Tams (258 N. Y. 229) that a complaint may be amended so as to introduce therein even a cause of action barred by the Statute of Limitations, but in such ease the defendant cannot be deprived of that defense. The difference between such a procedure and dismissal of a complaint on motion under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, or the refusal to permit an amended complaint, is that the question whether the cause of action is barred is decided in the one instance upon affidavits and in the other after evidence has been adduced at a trial. In this case, it was proper to have allowed the amendment in order that it may be determined upon the trial whether the amended pleading contains a new cause of action, which would be barred by the Statute of Limitations at the time of the amendment, or whether it be merely an amendment with respect to facts which pertain to the cause of action stated in the original complaint, present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Yoorhis, JJ. Peck, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny upon the ground that the plaintiff, at this late date, should not be permitted to plead an entirely different contract with a vast extension of defendant’s claimed liability. [See post, p. 734.]

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

It was held in Harriss v. Tams (258 N. Y. 229) that a complaint may be amended so as to introduce therein even a cause of action barred by the Statute of Limitations, but in such ease the defendant cannot be deprived of that defense. The difference between such a procedure and dismissal of a complaint on motion under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, or the refusal to permit an amended complaint, is that the question whether the cause of action is barred is decided in the one instance upon affidavits and in the other after evidence has been adduced at a trial. In this case, it was proper to have allowed the amendment in order that it may be determined upon the trial whether the amended pleading contains a new cause of action, which would be barred by the Statute of Limitations at the time of the amendment, or whether it be merely an amendment with respect to facts which pertain to the cause of action stated in the original complaint, present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Yoorhis, JJ. Peck, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny upon the ground that the plaintiff, at this late date, should not be permitted to plead an entirely different contract with a vast extension of defendant’s claimed liability. [See post, p. 734.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 581, 107 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reutemann-v-cosmopolitan-tourist-co-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack