Case Name: Lena Burkert, Plaintiff, v. Minnie A. Bennett, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 35 Misc. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lena Burkert, Plaintiff, v. Minnie A. Bennett, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 318–320

Head Matter:
Lena Burkert, Plaintiff, v. Minnie A. Bennett, et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term for Motions,
June, 1901.)
¡Pleading — Insufficiency — Repetition of denials in a defence — Denial on information and belief — Partial Defence — Code C. P. §§ 500, 507, 508.
; A defence cannot be struck out for insufficiency, the remedy being • by demurrer.'
Introductions to each of several defences in the words: “ And repeating the allegations and denials hereinbefore set forth as com pletely as if herein fully set forth ” must be stricken out as irrelevant and redundant, as a defence must be complete in itself and must consist of new matter,' outside of the issues raised or which can be raised by a denial.
An allegation that “ the defendants denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the complaint numbered first, second and third ” is not a denial that the defendants have any knowledge or information, and besides is bad as a denial in gross, instead of a denial of each allegation.
If a defence is not pleaded as partial it is to be taken as complete, and therefore, the pleader cannot be compelled to state whether it is partial or complete. -
Motion to strike out parts of the answer.
E. G. Higginbotham for motion.
C. M. Stafford opposed.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.
It would be difficult to draw a more illiterate
and unscientific answer; but the plaintiff has mistaken the remedy against most of it. The four so-called " defences " cannot be struck out for insufficiency. The remedy is demurrer. The introduction to each one, however, in these words, viz., " and repeating the allegations and denials hereinbefore set forth as completely as if herein fully set forth ", must be struck out as irrelevant and redundant. A " defence " must be complete in and of itself, and can consist only of " new matter " which constitutes a defence to the action, i. e., new matter which, taking the complaint to be true in all of its allegations, nevertheless defeats the action. " Rew matter " is matter outside of the issues raised or which could be raised by a denial. There can be no denial of the complaint or of any part of it in a " defence ". A " denial " and a "defence" are distinct and separate parts of an answer (Code Civ. Pro., § 500; Hinchcliffe v. Staten I. R. Co., 34 Misc. Rep. 49, and cases there cited; Durst v. Brooklyn H. R. Co., 33 Misc. Rep. 124).
The first denial in this answer is that "the defendants denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the complaint numbered first, second and. third." Apart from the grammatical feature (which I suppose we must shut our eyes to), this is no denial. It is not a denial that " the defendants " have any knowledge or information, and it is besides in gross, instead of being of each allegation as required by the Oode. It should be in so many words that the defendants deny that " they " have any knowledge or information of any of the allegations contained in the said paragraphs sufficient to form a belief thereof (Code Civ. Pro. § 500). But the plaintiff has no reason to complain of a so-called denial which is no denial.
The part of the motion that the defendants make the answer more definite and certain by. stating whether each defence is a partial or complete defence is denied. If a defence be not pleaded as a " partial " defence it is taken to be pleaded as a complete defence (Code Civ. Pro., § 507-8).
Let an order be entered in accordance with the foregoing, with $10 costs.