Case Name: Josephine Leslie, Respondent, v. Norard Grover, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-05-05
Citations: 132 A.D. 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josephine Leslie, Respondent, v. Norard Grover, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 448–451

Head Matter:
Josephine Leslie, Respondent, v. Norard Grover, Appellant.
Fourth Department,
May 5, 1909.
Trial — amendment to- conform to proof—nonsuit on merits.
Where a defendant does not raise the objection that there is a variance between the pleading and proof until the evidence is closed, and he has not been misled as to the nature of the' plaintiff’s claim and has given- evidence to meet it, the cotirt may grant an amendment to conform to the proof. But having granted the amendment and also having allowed the defendant to amend so as to plead the Statute of Frauds, it is error to dismiss the complaint upon the merits.
Robson, J., and McLennan, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Norard Grover, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 22d day of September, 1908, reversing a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Buffalo in favor of the defendant, which dismissed the complaint, and directing á new trial in the Municipal Court.
Edward C. Schlenker and Eugene L. Falk, for the appellant.
Gordon F. Matthews, for the respondent.

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 under 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; Cullen v. Battle Island Paper Co., 124 App. Div. 113; Baumann v. Tannenbaum, 125 id. 770), but erred in granting the nonsuit 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.
All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Eobbon, J., who dissented in an opinion by Bobson, J.