Legal Opinion

Cogswell v. Cogswell

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.

Defendant moves for leave to serve an amended answer. A copy of the proposed answer was served with his motion papers and his affidavit presents a sufficient excuse. The defendant’s motion should be granted and the proposed answer as served upon plaintiff’s attorney may be deemed served for all purposes of this case and will be considered upon this motion as defendant’s pleading herein.

The parties to this action were married on December 28, 1905, and lived together until November 16, 1918, when they separated and they have since lived separate and apart. They have three children. On January…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Winter v. . WinterNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Stoddard v. . StoddardNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  3. Rodger v. BlissNew York Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nichols v. NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Surlak v. SurlakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  3. Souran v. SouranSuffolk County District Court · 1975
  4. Nichols v. NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  5. Taus v. TausAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API