Majority
p. 466LEOPOLDSTADT v. KAHN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 17, 1912.) Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARICE, SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
Headnote
Pleading (§ 245*)—Complaint—Amendment.Where plaintiff had been slow in discovering the deficiencies in his complaint, but there was no suggestion that he had been guilty of bad faith, his application to amend should have been granted.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 635, 653-675; Dec. Dig. § 245.*]
•For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Abraham Leopoldsta.dt against Maurice Kahn. • From an order denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, he appeals. Reversed.
■ Edward W. S. Johnston, of New York City, for appellant.
Walter J. Rosenstein, of New York City, for respondent.
The plaintiff should have been permitted to amend his complaint. Although he has been a little slow in discovering the deficiencies of his present complaint, there is no suggestion that he has been guilty of bad faith. Muller v. City of Philadelphia, 113 App. Div. 92 , 99 N. Y. Supp. 93 ; People v. Ostrander, 144 App. Div. 860 , 129 N. Y. Supp. 922 .
The order appealed from must therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted upon payment by plaintiff of $30 trial fee and $10 costs of motion.