Case ID: ny-st-rep_56/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Robert A. Yan Wyck, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annie De Witt et al., App’lts; v. Samuel Brill et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 27, 1893.
    
    Pleadings—Redundant.
    A defendant is not allowed to repeat his specific or general denials in each of his entire separate alleged defenses, consisting of new matter. Such matter should be stricken out, on motion, as redundant.
    Appeal from order denying motion to strike from the answer redundant matter.
    
      Chas B. Lansing, for pl’ff-app’lt; Geo. W. Gallinger, for def’t-resp’t.
   Robert A. Yan Wyck, P. J.

The answer by specific denials, puts at issue every material allegation of the complaint, excepthe copartnership of defendants, and then follows the fourth part agraph of the answer as follows: “For a separate and distinct defense and repeating the previous allegations ” (which are the specfic denials) and then goes on to allege a defense consisting of new matter. , The plaintiff moved to strike from this alleged separate and distinct defense, the words “and repeating the previous allegations ” as redundant. Plaintiff’s contention being that a demurrer will not lie to a part of an entire defense in an answer, and that while the previous specific denials are allowed to stand in the fourth paragraph which sets forth an alleged entire defense consisting of new matter, he is precluded from availing himself of the provisions of § 494 of the Code, which allows demurrer to a defense consisting of new matter contained in the answer, on the ground that it is insufficient in' law, upon the face thereof. And certainly, demurrer will not lie to either a specific or general denial, and if a defendant is allowed to repeat his specific or general denials in each of his entire separate alleged defenses, consisting of new matter, .then he can, at will, nullify the express provisions of § 494; but of course, he has no right to do so: The motion should have been granted and not denied. The order is reversed with ten dollars costs and motion to strike from the fourth paragraph of the answer the words “ and repeating the previous allegations, granted With ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiffs to demur to the alleged defense in the fourth paragraph consisting of new matter, within six days after entry of order herein.

McCarthy, J., concurs.