Charles v. Charles

Defendant husband’s motion to preclude is denied. The plaintiff wife’s affidavit and her pleadings indicate that she is relying on a course of conduct rather than any specific acts to prove her cause of action of cruel and inhuman treatment. She has sufficiently particularized such conduct in her bill of particulars. (Plucer v. Plucer, 8 A D 2d 713; Loeb v. Loeb, 240 App. Div. 912; Earle v. Earle, 79 App. Div. 631; Shanik v. Shanik, 207 Misc. 685; Kraus v. Kraus, 120 N. Y. S. 2d 845.)

Motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint and reply is denied on condition that she appear at Special Term, Part…