Epstein v. Goldsmith — 150 N.Y.S. 1085

Majority

p. 1085

EPSTEIN v. GOLDSMITH et al.

(No. 6699.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Headnote

Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by David Epstein against Nellie Goldsmith and another. From an order denying a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, and to strike out certain allegations defendants Modified and affirmed.

Lewis M. Isaacs, of New York City, for appellants.

Alexander Pfeiffer, of New York City, for respondent.

The order appealed from should be modified as follows: First. The complaint should be made more definite and certain: (1) Paragraphs 3 and 4, by specifying with more and sufficient .particularity when defendant Lewis is claimed to have fraudulently transferred the property therein described; (2) by specifying in similar manner the character of the transfers to and source of title of said Lewis to said property; (3) paragraph eighth, by similarly specifying to whom the property and moneys with which the bonds were purchased belonged. Second. The entire ninth paragraph should be stricken out as irrelevant. As so modified, the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellants.