Fitzpatrick v. Rogers

¶1We are 5of opinion that by the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion to '.amend the answer upon the trial, defendant was foreclosed of a substantial defense to the action, and this calls for a reversal of the judgment. (Goldstein v. Schleifer, 209 App. Div. 899.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed on the law,- and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.