Hutchinson v. Bien — 93 N.Y.S. 216

Majority

p. 216

HUTCHINSON v. BIEN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 21, 1905.)

Headnote

Pleading—Answer—Limited Denials—Frivolousness.

An answer, on information and belief, denying the allegations “as alleged” in certain paragraphs of the complaint, limited such denial to the form of the allegations of the complaint, instead of denying the substance, and was bad.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 39, Cent. Dig. Pleading, § 244.]

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by David W. Hutchinson against Franklin Bien, as receiver of the assets of Hazard, Hazard & Co. From an order ( 93 N. Y. Supp. 189 ) granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the ground that defendant’s answer was frivolous, he appeals. Affirmed.

Arguedbefore HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and BARTLETT, JENKS, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Josiah Canter, for appellant.

David K. Case, for respondent.

This is an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the answer as frivolous.^ The. answer is as follows: “(1) On information and belief, he denies^ the allegations as alleged in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint herein.” The vice of this answer is found in the words "as alleged,” which limit the denial to the form of the allegations of the complaint, instead of denying the substance. Such a denial is clearly bad upon mere inspection, and the order appealed from should therefore be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.