Rosner v. Rosner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosner v. Rosner

42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172

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

DecidedJune 18, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 597 (Rosner v. Rosner) 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

Rosner v. Rosner, 42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia for separation, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 14, 1972, which denied her motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The amended complaint must be served within. 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The original complaint stated several causes of action. The proposed amended complaint seeks to delete the cause of action seeking a separation. Plaintiff no longer wishes to obtain such relief. Under the circumstances, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia for separation, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 14, 1972, which denied her motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The amended complaint must be served within. 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The original complaint stated several causes of action. The proposed amended complaint seeks to delete the cause of action seeking a separation. Plaintiff no longer wishes to obtain such relief. Under the circumstances, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 597, 344 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosner-v-rosner-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack