Manco Distributors, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manco Distributors, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co.

11 A.D.2d 1088, 206 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7440

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1088 (Manco Distributors, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manco Distributors, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co., 11 A.D.2d 1088, 206 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Motions under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out a part of a complaint as sham or irrelevant are not favored and they will not be granted in the absence of a clear showing that the allegations have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation and that substantial prejudice will result if the allegations objected to are npt stricken out (4 Carmody-Wait, New York ¡Practice, pp. 756-767, and cases there cited). There was no such showing here. The question sought to be raised by the appellant can be adequately dealt with by the trial court, without prejudice to the appellant. In affirming the order, we do not express any opinion as to the admissibility of evidence to support the allegations of the complaint attacked by the motion. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying defendant’s motion to strike certain paragraphs from plaintiff’s amended complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Motions under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out a part of a complaint as sham or irrelevant are not favored and they will not be granted in the absence of a clear showing that the allegations have no possible bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation and that substantial prejudice will result if the allegations objected to are npt stricken out (4 Carmody-Wait, New York ¡Practice, pp. 756-767, and cases there cited). There was no such showing here. The question sought to be raised by the appellant can be adequately dealt with by the trial court, without prejudice to the appellant. In affirming the order, we do not express any opinion as to the admissibility of evidence to support the allegations of the complaint attacked by the motion. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying defendant’s motion to strike certain paragraphs from plaintiff’s amended complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1088, 206 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manco-distributors-inc-v-bigelow-sanford-carpet-co-nyappdiv-1960.