Case ID: nys_152/html/0970-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMEZAGA v. FERNANDEZ et al.
    (No. 7263.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 30, 1915.)
    Pleading <@=>238—Amendment—Complaint—Showing.
    An order granting leave to serve an amended complaint will be reversed, where plaintiff filed no affidavit showing why he failed to .allege the matter in his original complaint, and his grounds for believing the new allegations, and did not show any excuse for failure to file such afdavit.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 602, 620-625; Dec. Dig. €=>238.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Jose M. Atnezaga against Celestine Fernandez and others. From an order granting a motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, the defendants appeal. Reversed, and motion denied.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    Burt D. Whedon, of New York City, for appellants.
    William E. Collins, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs, upon the ground that there is no affidavit presented by the plaintiff explaining the reason for the failure to include in the original complaint the facts now sought to be set up in the amended complaint, or setting forth his grounds for believing the new allegations contained in the amended complaint, nor is his failure to present such affidavit properly excused, with leave to renew the motion upon proper papers. Order filed.