Legal Opinion

Hull v. Cohen

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.

The motion with reference to the complaint was timely made. Section 98 of the Civil Practice Act permits the court or a judge thereof to enlarge the time appointed by statute or rules, or fixed by any order enlarging time for doing any act or taking any proceedings, upon such terms as the justice of the case may require, and permits any enlargement, upon good cause shown, although the application is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed. Rule 105 of the Rules of Civil Practice, requiring motions under rules 102, 103 and 104 to be noticed within twenty days from…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Brackett v. . GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Urtz v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Knowles v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. Cohn v. . GoldmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  5. Ritzwoller v. . LurieNew York Court of Appeals · 1919

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of MullinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
  2. In re the Probate of the Will of BreskyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
  3. Hull v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API