Case ID: ny-sup-ct_24/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Quriam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM L. McINTYRE AND WILLIAM M. GAWTRY, Appellants, v. CLARENCE OGDEN, PHILOMENA OGDEN AND WILLIAM N. BERRIAN, Respondents.
    
      Matter will nob be stricken out of an answer as irrelevant, when it is responsive to iml&oant matter in the complaint.
    
    Appeal from an order denying an application to strike out part of the answer of the defendant Ogden, as irrelevant and redundant.
    The court at General Term said: “ The disposition made of this motion by the court below, must, we think, prevail. The irrelevant and redundant matter contained in the answer, and of which the plaintiffs complain, was a response to irrelevant and redundant matter contained in the complaint. This, we think, is a sufficient answer to the appeal taken in this case. The plaintiff, having unnecessarily loaded his complaint with allegations not essential to his success, cannot complain if defendant answers them by responses which are proper in themselves, considered in relation to the matter which provokes them.”
    
      Henry H. Morange, for the appellants. George TV. Sandford, for the respondents.
   Opinion

Per Quriam.

Present — Brady, P. J., and Ingalls, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.