New York Law Review

Tag: pleading

  • Murray v. City of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 113 (1972): Discretion to Amend Answer to Plead Statute of Limitations

    Murray v. City of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 113 (1972)

    A court’s discretion to deny an amendment to an answer to plead the statute of limitations exists only where clear and disabling prejudice will be worked to the plaintiff; however, if the trial court’s decision was based on a matter of law, not discretion, the appellate court’s affirmance of the findings of fact is ineffectual.

    Summary

    This case addresses the discretion of a trial court to allow the amendment of an answer to include a statute of limitations defense. The Court of Appeals held that while such amendments should be liberally granted, the trial court retains discretion to deny them if the plaintiff would suffer clear and disabling prejudice. However, the Court found that the trial court’s decision was based on an interpretation of law, not on discretionary considerations, rendering the appellate division’s affirmance of the findings of fact ineffectual. The case was remitted for a factual determination.

    Facts

    The specific facts underlying the plaintiff’s claim are not detailed in this memorandum decision. The key fact is that the defendant, City of New York, sought to amend its answer to include a statute of limitations defense. The trial court’s decision regarding the amendment was appealed.

    Procedural History

    The trial court made a decision regarding the defendant’s motion to amend its answer. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the findings of fact was effectual, given that the Trial Term’s decision was rendered as a matter of law, rather than in the exercise of discretion.

    Holding

    No, because the Trial Term’s decision was based on a matter of law, not discretion; therefore, the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the findings of fact was ineffectual.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that amendments to plead the statute of limitations should be liberally granted unless the plaintiff would experience “clear and disabling prejudice.” However, the Court emphasized that the trial court’s discretion remains a factor. The central issue was whether the trial court’s decision was an exercise of discretion, which the Appellate Division affirmed factually, or a decision based on a point of law. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court treated the issue as one of law, not discretion. Because of this, the Court found the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the findings of fact to be ineffectual. The Court reasoned that the appellate court was affirming a legal conclusion rather than a discretionary decision. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination of the factual issues.

  • Robert v. Good, 36 N.Y. 103 (1867): Admissibility of Evidence and Curing Defects on Appeal

    Robert v. Good, 36 N.Y. 103 (1867)

    An allegation in a complaint that a document was executed is sufficient proof of the document’s delivery, and defects in evidence presented at trial can be cured by the submission of proper evidence during the appeal process, particularly in courts with statutorily defined procedures.

    Summary

    Robert sued Good on an undertaking related to an appeal in the Marine Court. The complaint alleged the execution of the undertaking, affirmance of the judgment, and failure to pay. Good’s answer primarily disputed the affirmance and non-payment. At trial, Robert offered a copy of the undertaking and the justice’s docket, which had a slight name discrepancy. An improperly certified order of affirmance was also admitted. Good moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of proof of delivery, a non-existent judgment, and insufficient evidence of affirmance. The motion was denied, and the jury found for Robert. On appeal, Robert introduced a duly certified copy of the order of affirmance. The Court of Appeals held that the initial evidentiary errors were either non-prejudicial or cured by the evidence presented on appeal.

    Facts

    1. Thomas Robert sued Ezekiel Donnell in the Marine Court.
    2. Donnell appealed the judgment to the General Term of the Marine Court.
    3. Good and Donnell executed an undertaking promising Donnell would pay costs and damages if the judgment was affirmed.
    4. The judgment was affirmed by the General Term.
    5. Donnell failed to pay the judgment.
    6. Robert then sued Good on the undertaking in the New York Common Pleas.

    Procedural History

    1. Robert sued Good in the New York Common Pleas.
    2. The trial court found in favor of Robert.
    3. Good appealed to the General Term of the Common Pleas, which affirmed the judgment.
    4. Good then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the allegation of execution in the complaint sufficiently proves delivery of the undertaking.
    2. Whether the admission of a copy of the undertaking and notice was prejudicial error.
    3. Whether the defect in the evidence regarding the affirmance of the judgment at trial could be cured by submitting a duly certified copy on appeal.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the allegation of execution in the complaint, not being denied in the answer, sufficiently proves complete execution, including delivery.
    2. No, because the proof of the undertaking was not required, as it stood admitted upon the pleadings, so the admission of the copy was not prejudicial.
    3. Yes, because defects in documentary evidence can be cured by supplying the correct evidence during the appellate process.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the allegation in the complaint that the undertaking was executed by the defendants, and the absence of denial in the answer, was sufficient proof of the complete execution, including delivery. The Court found the admission of the copy of the undertaking and notice was erroneous, but not prejudicial because proof of the undertaking was unnecessary due to its admission in the pleadings. Regarding the order of affirmance, the court acknowledged that the initial copy admitted at trial was not duly certified and should have been excluded. However, this defect was cured by the duly certified copy supplied during the appeal. The Court emphasized that Marine Court proceedings are statutorily regulated and its judgments are not formally enrolled. The order of the General Term, entered in its minutes, affirming the judgment was proper evidence of the fact, and an exemplified copy or a copy certified by the clerk under the seal of the Court was equally competent and conclusive. The Court cited previous cases such as Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend. 524 and Williams v. Wood, 14 Wend. 126 supporting their reasoning.