Case Name: LESLIE v. GROVER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05-05
Citations: 116 N.Y.S. 868
Docket Number: 
Parties: LESLIE v. GROVER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 116
Pages: 868–870

Head Matter:
LESLIE v. GROVER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
May 5, 1909.)
J. Pleading (§ 237 )—Amendment—Conforming Pleading to Proof. ,
Where no question is raised upon the trial, until after the evidence is closed, that there is a variance between the allegations of the complaint and the proof, and there is no misapprehension by the defendant as to the nature of plaintiff’s claim, and the defendant gave no evidence to meet it, the court properly allowed the complaint to be amended to conform to the proof.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 603-619; Dec. Dig. § 237.*]
2. Trial (§ 159*)—Jury Case—Amendment of Pleading—Nonsuit.
Where, in a jury case, plaintiff asked and is allowed to amend his complaint after the evidence is closed to conform to the proof, it is error to then render a judgment of nonsuit and dismiss the complaint on the merits.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 359-367; Dec. Dig. § 159.*]
BlcLennan, P. J., and Robson, J., dissenting.
"Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by Josephine Leslie against Norard Grover. Erom an order of the'Special Term reversing a judgment in the Municipal Court in ■ favor of defendant and directing a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Edward C. Schlenker, for appellant.
Gordon F. Matthews, for respondent.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
No question was raised upon the trial, until after the evidence was closed, 'that there was a variance between the proof and the cause of action alleged in the complaint. There was no misapprehension by the defendant as to the precise nature of the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant gave evidence to meet it. I think that undér such circumstances the trial court properly permitted the complaint to be amended to conform to the proof (Martin v. Home Bank, 160 N. Y. 190-198, 54 N. E. 717; Cullen v. Battle Island Paper Co., 124 App. Div. 113, 108 N. Y. Supp. 921; Baumann v. Tannenbaum, 125 App. Div. 770, 110 N. Y. Supp. 108), but erred in granting the non-suit and dismissing the complaint, and therefore the judgment was properly reversed at Special Term.
I think the order of reversal should be affirmed, with costs.
SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.