Case ID: ad_69/html/0021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William E. D. Stokes, Respondent, v. The Star Company, Appellant.
    
      Pleading—irrelevant matter stricken out only when, its presence will work an injustice.
    
    Motions to strike out allegations from an answer as irrelevant, redundant and scandalous should be granted only in cases where it is evident that such allegations, if allowed to remain a part of the record, will work an injustice to the moving party.
    Appeal by the defendant, The Star Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of December, 1901, striking out certain allegations in the answer as irrelevant, redundant and scandalous.
    
      G. j. Shewn, for the appellant.
    
      John Mott Stewns, for the respondent.
   Van Brunt, P. J.:

We are of the opinion that motions of this kind should be granted only in cases where it is evident that the allegations questioned, if allowed to remain as a part of the record, will work an injustice to the moving party. It is often difficult to determine upon pleadings themselves whether or not allegations contained therein will be irrelevant and redundant when the facts are developed upon the trial, as the course of the evidence frequently makes that, which at first blush might seem irrelevant to be pertinent to the peculiar phase which the case assumes. In the case at bar it may be that certain of the allegations stricken out will be irrelevant There are others which, are clearly pertinent, and it should be left to the trial court to determine as to whether evidence should be allowed in support of .these allegations or not. There are none of them which can in any way injure the plaintiff or put him to any disadvantage in the trial of the case. We think, therefore, that the motion should have been denied.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event.

O’Brien, Ingraham and Hatch, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars .costs to abide event.