Court Opinion

ID: 6056320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 15:31:11.777113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:48.608264
License: Public Domain

The plaintiff was a social visitor and a licensee. (Roth v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of America, 266 App. Div. 872; Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578; Restatement, Torts, §§ 331, 332.) Order denying plaintiff’s motion for permission to serve a second amended complaint unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to permit plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint alleging matters purely of evidence. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See post, pp. 710, 770.]