Case ID: misc_25/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James A. Deering, Plaintiff, v. John Schreyer, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    December, 1898.)
    Pleading — Striking out irrelevant and redundant matter — Buie in equity.
    It is not a matter of right to have irrelevant and redundant allegations stricken from a complaint and, in equity especially, the plaintiff should be allowed great latitude in setting forth, in good faith, whatever he deems important to his cause of action.
    Motion to strike out certain portions of the complaint as irrelevant and redundant.
    Action to declare and enforce a lien in plaintiff for professional services on a fund in the hands of the city chamberlain arising in certain condemnation proceedings which were conducted by the plaintiff for the defendants. The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, in a proceeding taken by the plaintiff, had sent him to a suit in equity to fix and enforce his lien. Plaintiff, in obedience to the order of the court, returned the money to the chamberlain.
    Alex. Thain, for motion.
    Vedder Van Dyck, opposed.
   Lawrence, J.

It has been held that the striking out of portions of a complaint as irrelevant and redundant is discretionary, anu that great latitude should be allowed, in equitable actions especially, in setting forth in the complaint whatever, in good faith, the plaintiff thinks may be important. 8 Hun, 361. In that case the court says: “Irrelevant and redundant allegations hurt no one. It is not, therefore, an absolute right to have them stricken out. The court should exercise a discretion. It might reasonably strike out matter which is plainly and on the first glance seen to be impertinent. But it should use this power with reluctance and caution. There is little benefit in motions of this kind, and there may be much harm. Immaterial evidence can always be rejected at the trial.” And the court, after stating the rule as to equitable actions above referred to, and without deciding as to the materiality of the allegations which had been stricken out at Special Term, reversed the order of that tribunal, with costs.

Motion denied.