Case Name: Henry E. Gropp, Respondent, v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-06-04
Citations: 205 N.Y. 617
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry E. Gropp, Respondent, v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 205
Pages: 617–617

Head Matter:
Henry E. Gropp, Respondent, v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellant.
Gropp v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 141 App. Div. 372, reversed.
(Argued May 14, 1912;
decided June 4, 1912.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 12,1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of defendant.
William Hazen Peck and John W. Crandall for appellant.
Don P. Almy for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on the ground that the amendment of the complaint allowed by the trial court introduced a new and different cause of action, as to which this court concurs in the dissenting opinion of Ingraham, P. J., below; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hisoock, Chase and Collin, JJ.