Stanford v. Linen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanford v. Linen

255 A.D. 928, 8 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 928 (Stanford v. Linen) 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

Stanford v. Linen, 255 A.D. 928, 8 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: All oral negotiations between the parties were had prior to the date of the signing of the contract and were merged in the written contract. Therefore, it would be useless to permit an amendment alleging that the contract was partly oral and partly written, as evidence to support such allegation would be incompetent. The courts will not permit an amendment where it clearly appears that it will not be of benefit to the party seeking the same but will result in wasting the time of the trial court and causing unnecessary expense to the county in which the venue is laid. (Muller v. Muller, 35 Hun, 670; Woentz v. City of New York, 101 Misc. 622; affd., 183 App. Div. 944.) All concur. (The order denies a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint in an action on a contract.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: All oral negotiations between the parties were had prior to the date of the signing of the contract and were merged in the written contract. Therefore, it would be useless to permit an amendment alleging that the contract was partly oral and partly written, as evidence to support such allegation would be incompetent. The courts will not permit an amendment where it clearly appears that it will not be of benefit to the party seeking the same but will result in wasting the time of the trial court and causing unnecessary expense to the county in which the venue is laid. (Muller v. Muller, 35 Hun, 670; Woentz v. City of New York, 101 Misc. 622; affd., 183 App. Div. 944.) All concur. (The order denies a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint in an action on a contract.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 928, 8 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-linen-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack