Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York June 15, 1925 (Fitzpatrick v. Rogers)

We 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.