Case Name: Howard Rawlings, Resp't, v. Sanfelici Alexander, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05-18
Citations: 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 409
Docket Number: 
Parties: Howard Rawlings, Resp’t, v Sanfelici Alexander, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 59
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
Howard Rawlings, Resp’t, v Sanfelici Alexander, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed May 18, 1894.)
Pleadings—Answer—Denial .
An answer which admits an allegation of the complaint and then ‘ ‘ denies each and every other allegation in said complaint not heretofore specifically admitted, controverted or denied,” presents a sufficient denial.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict directed in favor of the plaintiff.
C. A. Watson, for app’lt; Hayes & Greenbaum, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, C. J.
The action is to recover for goods sold and delivered by the firm of James Saitta's Bon & Co. to the defendant. The plaintiff claims under an assignment executed by that firm. The answer admits that the defendant purchased from said firm certain goods and merchandise, and for further answer "denies each and every other allegation in said complaint contained not hereinbefore specifically admitted, controverted or denied." Plaintiff's counsel moved for judgment on the pleadings, the court granted the motion, and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, which is now the subject of review. The reason for granting plaintiff's motion was that the answer was not in the form authorized by the Code. But the court of appeals in Griffin v. Long Island R. R. Co., 101 N. Y. 349; 1 St. Rep. 56, has held that such a denial is good and creates a triable issue. Following this case it is clear that the defendant by his answer put in issue the value or agreed price of the goods, together with the fact whether the assignment under which the plaintiff claims was ever executed, as alleged. The direction to find for the plaintiff, was clearly unauthorized, and the judgment entered on such direction must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Van Wtck, J., concurs.