William H. Frank Brewing Co. v. Hammersen
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, The William H. Frank Brewing Company, from so much of an .order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 5tli day of June, 1897, as' grants the defendant’s motion to strike out portions of the plaintiff’s reply as irrelevant, redundant and as new matter inconsistent with the complaint.
1Opinion of the Court
Willard Bartlett, J.:
The Code of Civil Procedure provides that irrelevant, redundant or scandalous matter in a pleading may be stricken out upon the motion of a person aggrieved thereby. (Code Civ. Proc. § 545.) In the case of Goodman v. Robb (41 Hun, 605), however, the General Term of the fifth department expressed the opinion that an entire count in a pleading could not be stricken out as irrelevant or redundant under this section of the Code. If that view be correct, the order under review cannot be sustained so far as it is based upon irrelevancy or redundancy, for it assumes to strike…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eidlitz v. RothschildNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Fitzgerald v. RightmeyerNew York Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by6 opinions
- Uggla v. BrokawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Noval v. HaugNew York Supreme Court · 1905
- Young v. DresserAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Swertz v. SwertzNew York Supreme Court · 1961
- Rosen v. RosenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.