Case ID: ny-sup-ct_8/html/0309-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALBERT J. SMITH, Respondent, v. JOHN BODINE and others, Appellants.
    
      Motion, to amend answer — when denied—laches—discretion.
    
    When a cíase has been long pending, and is on the second trial before a referee, and when the evidence given on the preceding trial, subjects the affidavit, made in support of the application for leave to amend the answer, to grave suspicions as to the correctness of its statements, the court will consider such circumstances on such an application.
    Whether an amendment to a pleading should be allowed or not, has been confided, by the provisions of the Code, very much to the discretion of the court .hearing the motion. And, ordinarily the exercise of that discretion is not after-wards the subject of review by the General Term, upon appeal.
    Appeal from an order denying leave to amend an answer, by adding an allegation materially changing the effect of an admission, made as to the amount of compensation due to the plaintiff for his services.
    
      Cyrus Lawton, for the appellants.
    
      Henry Niooll, for the respondent.
   Opinion by Daniels, J.

Order affirmed.