City of New York Municipal Court, 1900

King v. Gossel

King v. Gossel
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided October 29, 1900 · Conlan
66 N.Y.S. 1134 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Carte Hughes & Dwight, for appellant. Daniel YY Patterson, for respondent.

King v. Gossel

Opinion of the Court

CONLAN, J.

This is an appeal from an oi der, made at special term, denying defendant’ motion for leave to serve an amended answei We are satisfied, on examination, that the de *1135lendant should be allowed to serve his proposed l imended answer. The order appealed from will 3e modified, so as to allow defendant to serve lis answer within five days from the entry of m order on this decision, on the payment of :axable costs to date, together with $10 costs if this motion, at the same time stipulating :hat the cause retain its place on the calendar md be tried when reached; otherwise, order ippealed from affirmed, and costs of this appeal n either event to respondent.

FITZSIMONS, C. J., and HASOALL, J., con:ur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.