Legal Opinion

Sobel v. Sobel

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

Decided December 18, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSherman, J.

After the time limited for the taking of an appeal from the final judgment had expired, defendant, who had theretofore served a timely notice of appeal from that judgment, moved for leave to amend that notice of appeal nunc pro tunc, by inserting therein the statement that the appellant intended to bring up for review an intermediate order which had denied, more than one *99year theretofore, his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The learned Special Term has allowed this amendment under sections 580, 105 and 107 of the Civil Practice Act.

The court was without power to exercise this discretion…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pollak v. Port Morris BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. 609 Holding Corp. v. McGoldrickNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Dusch v. DuschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  3. In re the Arbitration between Nationwide Mutual Insurance & HolbertNew York Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Johanson v. JacobsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API