Schoepflin v. Coffey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoepflin v. Coffey

69 N.Y.S. 1145

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 69 N.Y.S. 1145 (Schoepflin v. Coffey) 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

Schoepflin v. Coffey, 69 N.Y.S. 1145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Held that, considering the interpretation put upon the original amended complaint by the court of appeals (56 N. E. 502), we cannot properly hold that the terms imposed by the court at special term as a condition of permitting the plaintiff to serve the proposed amended complaint were an abuse of discretion, and such as to require a reversal of the order appealed from; also held, that the amendments proposed for the first time in appellant’s brief, and which it is suggested would be satisfactory if less onerous terms were imposed, should not be passed upon this appeal, but should be passed upon in the first instance by the special term.

SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur in the

affirmance of the order only.

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

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Held that, considering the interpretation put upon the original amended complaint by the court of appeals (56 N. E. 502), we cannot properly hold that the terms imposed by the court at special term as a condition of permitting the plaintiff to serve the proposed amended complaint were an abuse of discretion, and such as to require a reversal of the order appealed from; also held, that the amendments proposed for the first time in appellant’s brief, and which it is suggested would be satisfactory if less onerous terms were imposed, should not be passed upon this appeal, but should be passed upon in the first instance by the special term.

SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur in the

affirmance of the order only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.Y.S. 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoepflin-v-coffey-nyappdiv-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack