Case Name: ROACH a. LA FARGE
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-11
Citations: 19 Abb. Pr. 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROACH a. LA FARGE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's Practice Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 67–69

Head Matter:
ROACH a. LA FARGE.
Supreme Court, First District;
General Term, November, 1864
Revival by Supplemental Complaint.
The filing of a supplemental complaint for the purpose of reviving an action after the expiration of a year from the death of a party, is a matter of right.
A motion for leave to file such a supplemental complaint is unnecessary, and should be denied, leaving the applicant to file it as he may be advised.
Appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to file supplemental complaint.
In this action, which was brought by Peter Roach against John La Farge, the plaintiff moved at special term, more than a year after the death of the defendant, which occurred pending the action, for leave to file a supplemental complaint to revive the action against his personal representatives. The motion being denied, he took the present appeal.

Opinion:
By the Court. —Barnard, J.
This was a motion made at special term by the plaintiff for leave to file a supplemental complaint for the purpose of reviving the action.
The motion was denied at special term, and an appeal taken from the order entered on such denial.
In the Matter of Borsdorf (17 Abbotts' Pr., 168), the general term of this district decided that the filing of a supplemental complaint for this purpose was a matter of right, and that a motion for leave to file such complaint for such purpose was both unnecessary and improper. I think the decision in the Borsdorf case correct, and see no reason for departing from it; the filing of a supplemental complaint by plaintiff for the purpose of reviving an action being a matter of right.
Order affirmed, on the ground that the motion was unnecessary and improper.
Present, Leonard, P. J., Sutherland and Barnard, JJ.