Steinhardt v. Eisen

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinhardt v. Eisen

84 N.Y.S. 232

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 232 (Steinhardt v. Eisen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinhardt v. Eisen, 84 N.Y.S. 232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, and again at the close of the whole case, the defendants asked leave to amend the [233]*233answer by setting up the defense of usury. This was denied by the trial court. Municipal Court Act, § 166 (Laws 1902, p. 1542, c. 580), provides “that the court must, upon application, allow a pleading to be amended at any time, if substantial justice will be promoted thereby.” This proposed amendment should have been granted, upon such terms, however, as the court might deem proper. The defense sought to be interposed has sometimes been termed an unconscionable one, and not to be encouraged, but it is a legal one nevertheless, and if proven no recovery can be had. The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, and again at the close of the whole case, the defendants asked leave to amend the [233]*233answer by setting up the defense of usury. This was denied by the trial court. Municipal Court Act, § 166 (Laws 1902, p. 1542, c. 580), provides “that the court must, upon application, allow a pleading to be amended at any time, if substantial justice will be promoted thereby.” This proposed amendment should have been granted, upon such terms, however, as the court might deem proper. The defense sought to be interposed has sometimes been termed an unconscionable one, and not to be encouraged, but it is a legal one nevertheless, and if proven no recovery can be had. The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed. New trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinhardt-v-eisen-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack