Goldstein v. Schleifer

Judgment and order reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was an erroneous exercise of discretion to deny the motion to amend the answers. Since plaintiff did not claim surprise or prejudice, such amendment should be granted “ almost as a matter of course, to the end that the parties to the litigation may have an opportunity to raise and have determined such questions as they may think affect their respective interests.” (Milliken v. McGarrah, 104 App. Div. 110.) (See also, Markowitz v. Markowitz, 119 Misc. Rep. 609; Gedney v. Diorio, 190 App. Div.…