Case ID: nys_71/html/1151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HASCALL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WIEDERMAN, Respondent, v. GLASS, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    May, 1901.)
    Appeal from order of special term refusing leave to defendant to serve a supplemental answer. Corn & Laznnsky (Joseph J. Coirn, of counsel), for appellant. Geo. C. De Lacy, for respondent.
   HASCALL, J.

The court below exercised a wise discretion in making the order from which appeal is taken. At best, the proposed supplemental answer was of doubtful significance, and application would, we think, have presented no additionally strengthened or substantial defense, and no additional testimony could be introduced in its support. It is possible, too, that, beside this consideration, the very patent laches of defendant in moving had its due effect in determining a denial of unusual relief. Order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Order affirmed, with costs.

O’DWYER, J., concurs.