
    LENT v. TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 29, 1909.)
    Pleading (§ 238)—Complaint—Amendment—Affidavit.
    An order granting leave to amend plaintiff’s complaint on the affidavit of his attorney, which failed to show that affiant had any knowledge of the additional facts sought to be incorporated, was unsustainable.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 622; Dec. Dig. § 238.]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
    Action by Solomon Lent against the Title Insurance Company of New York. From an order of the City Court of New York granting plaintiff’s iriotion to amend his complaint, defendant appeals.
    Reversed
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEABURY, JJ.
    
      William F. Clare, for appellant.
    Louis A. Jaffer, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

The defendant appeals from an order permitting the plaintiff to amend his complaint. The order was based upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff’s attorney, and failed to show that the affiant had any knowledge of the additional facts sought to be incorporated in the complaint by the proposed amendment. The affidavit upon which the motion was made was insufficient as a basis for granting the relief sought. Tompkins v. Continental National Bank. 71 App. Div. 330, 75 N. Y. Supp. 1099; Rhodes v. Lewin, 83 App. Div. 369, 54 N. Y. Supp. 106.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.  