Maisel v. Schwartzbaum
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin Brenner, J.
Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficiency. It contains three causes of action which differ substantially from those contained in the original complaint. This is not objectionable as a party having the right to amend a complaint may plead an entirely new cause of action, in which case the amended pleading replaces the former pleading. (Kolber v. Kolber, 267 App. Div. 837.) The claim that the plaintiff is guilty of laches becomes a material consideration only where leave to amend is sought from the court. (Smith v. Horn & Hardart Co., 276 App. Div. 869.) Since the order…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Miller v. . SchlossNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Roberts v. . ElyNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Cohen v. City Company of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Quintal v. KellnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Berri v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eightway Corp. v. Dime Savings BankCivil Court of the City of New York · 1978
- Naimoli v. MassaGeneva City Court · 1975
- Mais v. Futuristics Foods, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1977