David Ackerman, Appellant, v. Frank Goldstein and Max Swerdloff, Respondents. David Ackerman, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Parties Similarly Situated as Stockholders of Arrow Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., Appellant, v. Arrow Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., and Others, Respondents

David Ackerman, Appellant, v. Frank Goldstein and Max Swerdloff, Respondents. David Ackerman, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Parties Similarly Situated as Stockholders of Arrow Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., Appellant, v. Arrow Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., and Others, Respondents. [MAJORITY] Order in so far as it denies motion to amend complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The proposed amendment is not within the purview of section 105 of the Civil Practice Act. While the amendment may, upon a proper showing, be permitted, the issue tendered thereby must be the subject of a trial, and without a finding of fact that defendants’ representations were knowingly false, the plaintiff would not be entitled to judgment. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Carswell, Seudder and Davis, JJ., concur.