Case Name: MORRIS et al. v. FOWLER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-12-09
Citations: 90 N.Y.S. 918
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORRIS et al. v. FOWLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 90
Pages: 918–920

Head Matter:
(99 App. Div. 245)
MORRIS et al. v. FOWLER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
December 9, 1904.)
1. Complaint—Verification—Sufficiency.
Where it appears from the verification to a complaint that the affiant has no personal knowledge of the .facts' stated in the complaint, the verification is insufficient.
2. Unverified Answer—Sufficiency.
An unverified answer may properly be served to a complaint having an insufficient verification.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County. 1
Action by Nelson Morris and others against Charles H. Fowler. From an order denying a motion to compel plaintiffs to accept an unverified answer, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
George B. Stoddart, for appellant.
William F. Byrne, for respondents.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, J.
This is a motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept an unverified answer and to set aside judgment entered on default of service of an answer. The action is for goods sold and delivered, and the allegations are positive, and none on information and belief. There is an attempted verification of the complaint made by Mr. Byrne, the attorney for the plaintiffs, and it is peculiar in form. He says that he resides in the borough of Manhattan, and that he is the plaintiffs' attorney; "that he has read the foregoing complaint, and that he same is true of his own knowledge and belief, except as to the matters therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true." If that were all, it would be a good verification (Kieley v. Barron & Cooke Heating & Power Co., 87 App. Div. 317, 84 N. Y. Supp. 306); but the affiant goes on further to say:
"That the grounds of his belief and the source of his information as to the matters therein not stated on his knowledge are as follows: He has interviewed the defendant, and has received letters from the defendant acknowledging his indebtedness to the plaintiffs, and promising to pay same. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is not made by the plaintiffs, or either of them, is that the plaintiffs are without the state of New York, and have no personal knowledge of the facts herein stated."
This is not a good verification, for the reason stated in Moran v. Helf, 52 App. Div. 481, 65 N. Y. Supp. 113, viz., that from the statements in the affidavit of verification it appears that the attorney had no personal knowledge of the facts stated in the complaint. The defendant served an unverified answer, which was returned. He insists that he was entitled to put in such an answer, and, in view of what was held in the case last cited, his contention is right. It was there decided that an unverified answer may properly be served to a complaint which is verified as the one in the case at bar is.
The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.
O'BRIEN and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur.
2. See Pleading, vol. 39, Cent. Dig. § 886.