Legal Opinion
Copeland v. Hugo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 15, 1925PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
Under the provisions of the Civil Practice Act and the Rules of Civil Practice, the judge presiding at the trial has the same power to grant amendments to pleadings as has the judge at Special Term. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105; Rules Civ. Prac. rule 166; Feizi v. Second Russian Ins. Co., 199 App. Div. 775.) This includes the power to allow amendments changing the cause of action. (Feizi v. Second Russian Ins. Co., supra; Deyo v. Morss, 144 N. Y. 216.) The exercise of the power is safeguarded by giving the judge authority to “ adjourn the trial or direct a new trial, and impose terms and conditions…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Deyo v. . MorssNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Feizi v. Second Russian InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Gordon v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Hall v. JohnsonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1978
- Way v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Geier v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. of CaliforniaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Copeland v. HugoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.