Case Name: DEERING v. SCHREYER
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-12
Citations: 56 N.Y.S. 117
Docket Number: 
Parties: DEERING v. SCHREYER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 56
Pages: 117–117

Head Matter:
(25 Misc. Rep. 618.)
DEERING v. SCHREYER.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
December, 1898.)
1. Pleading—Appeal—Discretion oe Court.
The striking out of portions of a complaint, as Irrelevant and redundant, is discretionary.
2. Same.
Great latitude should be allowed, especially in equitable proceedings, in setting forth allegations in good faith deemed important.
Bill by James A. Deering against John Sehreyer. Motion to strike denied.
Alex. Thain, for the motion.
Vedder Van Dyck, opposed.

Opinion:
LAWRENCE, J.
It has been held that the striking out of portions of a complaint, as irrelevant and redundant, is discretionary, and 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. Town of Essex v. New York & C. R. Co., 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 exercise 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.