Cohen v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Cohen

31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 540 (Cohen v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Cohen, 31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant National Gasket & Washer Mfg. Co., Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 30, 1966, which granted its motion “ only to the extent of dismissing the amended complaint” with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint. Appeal dismissed as moot, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal is moot because a new complaint was served by respondent, pursuant to the leave granted by the order appealed from, and that new complaint has superseded the one attacked by the motion at Special Term. In any event, we have examined the merits of this appeal and we would have affirmed the order of Special Term if we were not dismissing the appeal. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant National Gasket & Washer Mfg. Co., Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 30, 1966, which granted its motion “ only to the extent of dismissing the amended complaint” with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint. Appeal dismissed as moot, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeal is moot because a new complaint was served by respondent, pursuant to the leave granted by the order appealed from, and that new complaint has superseded the one attacked by the motion at Special Term. In any event, we have examined the merits of this appeal and we would have affirmed the order of Special Term if we were not dismissing the appeal. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 540, 295 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1968.