Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

Full title: THOMAS FITZPATRICK, Respondent, v. HENRY H. ROGERS, Appellant

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 1, 1925

214 App. Div. 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Opinion

June, 1925.

We are of opinion that by the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant's motion to amend the answer upon the trial, defendant was foreclosed of a substantial defense to the action, and this calls for a reversal of the judgment. ( Goldstein v. Schleifer, 209 App. Div. 899.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.