Sbarboro v. Health Department
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal from special term. Action by Augustus Sbarboro against the health department of the city of New York, Charles G. Wilson, George B. Fowler, and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the answer, plaintiff appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term. Action by Augustus Sbarboro against the health department of the city of New York, Charles G. Wilson, George B. Fowler, and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the answer, plaintiff appeals. This is an action to compel the defendants to revoke certain ex parte orders made by them as members of the hoard of health, which perpetually enjoin the plaintiff from using the rear buildings Nos. 59 and 61 James street as a human habitation without a written permit from the board of health, and which condemn the buildings, and require the plaintiff to remove them.…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The plea in question must be treated independently. The rule is well settled that a defense which is separately pleaded as a distinct defense must be in itself complete, and must contain all that is necessary to answer the whole cause of action, or that part thereof which it purports to answer. Bank v. Lee, 2 Bosw. 694; Ritchie v. Garrison, 10 Abb. Prac. 246; Jackson v. Van Slyke, 44 Barb. 116, note. This rule does not tend to prolixity. Allegations of fact which form a part of several defenses may be once stated, and be thereafter incorporated in each successive defense by appropriate words…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Talcott v. . City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- McKyring v. . BullNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Austin v. . GoodrichNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- City of Buffalo v. . HollowayNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Underwood v. . GreenNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Eells v. DumaryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903