Registration of animals in a stock breeding association are governed by and controlled by by-laws of association. Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Association of America et al., 112 Misc. 262, 182 N.Y.S. 658, and on appeal, 196 App. Div. 842, 188 N.Y.S. 277, aff. 233 N.Y. 644, 135 N.E. 953. Upon motion and upon such terms as are just Court may relieve a party from final judgment for newly discovered evidence which could not with due diligence be discovered in time to move for new trial under Rule 59(b).

Although formal legal procedure is not required in connection with proceedings for the expulsion of members by such associations as the defendant, those rudimentary rights must be observed which are essential to any fair trial. Among these is the right of the accused member to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who appear against him. ( Reid v. Medical Society, 156 N.Y. Supp. 780 [not officially reported]; affd., 177 App. Div. 939; Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 112 Misc. 262; on this point affirmed, 196 App. Div. 842; affd., 233 N.Y. 644. See, also, Berizzi Co. v. Krausz, 239 N.Y. 315.) In the present case the plaintiff was excluded while Louis Steinhauser, one of the witnesses who appeared before the executive board, gave his evidence.

Lazansky, P.J., Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Seeger and Scudder, JJ., dissent upon the ground that the rule adopted did not comply with the spirit and intent of the statute. ( Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 112 Misc. 262; 196 App. Div. 842; affd., 233 N.Y. 644.) Affd., 251 N.Y. ___.

However, even the courts in those jurisdictions professing to adhere to the contract theory often impose external standards in cases in which the rules do not provide sufficient procedural protection (76 Harv L Rev, at p 1027). Thus, some kind of notice and a hearing is often required even where no such provisions are found in the by-laws before a member can be suspended or expelled — at least where the association is formed for economic purposes or where members are entitled to privileges or rights of property (see, e.g., Wachtel v Noah Widows Orphans' Benevolent Soc., 84 N.Y. 28; Brooks v Engar, 259 App. Div. 333; Levy v Amateur Skating Union of U.S., 56 Misc.2d 257; Matter of Nametra, Inc. v American Soc. of Travel Agents, supra; Sloan v Braun, 20 Misc.2d 204; Cabana v Holstein-Friesian Assn. of Amer., 112 Misc. 262, mod in part 196 App. Div. 842, affd 233 N.Y. 644; Glauber v Patof, 183 Misc. 400, affd 269 App. Div. 687, revd on other grounds 294 N.Y. 583; Reid v Medical Soc. of Oneida County, 156 N.Y.S. 780, affd 177 App. Div. 939; Harmon v Matthews, 27 N.Y.S.2d 656). Thus, a complete statement of the rule in New York is as follows: "The well-established rule governing interference by the courts with the internal affairs of voluntary associations and membership corporations in regard to their disciplinary proceedings is, that the court will look into the record to see whether the practice and proceeding has been in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the organization, whether the charges are substantial, and whether the member has had fair notice and opportunity to be heard.

Among these is the right of the accused member to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who appear against him. ( Reid v. Medical Society, 156 N.Y. Supp. 780; affd., 177 App. Div. 939; Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 112 Misc. 262; on this point affirmed 196 App. Div. 842; affd., 233 N.Y. 644. See, also, Berizzi Co. v. Krausz, 239 N.Y. 315.)" (See, also, Reilly v. Hogan, 32 N.Y.S.2d 864, affd. 264 App. Div. 855; Rodier v. Huddell, 232 App. Div. 531; Roberts v. Shifferdecker, 170 App. Div. 918; Tesoriero v. Miller, 274 App. Div. 670.)