From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oishei v. New York Taxicab Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1910
136 App. Div. 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)

Opinion

March 4, 1910.

Nelson L. Keach [ Achille J. Oishei with him on the brief], for the appellant.

G.V. Smith [ Lewis D. Mooney with him on the brief], for the respondent.


This is an action whereby plaintiff seeks to have his lien as attorney for defendant Rifici ascertained and foreclosed against Rifici, that he have judgment against Rifici for $500, that he be adjudged to have a lien on the amount of a certain settlement made by the defendant and Rifici to the extent thereof or any other sum found due, and that the defendant be adjudged to pay to this plaintiff the amount of the lien found due out of the amount of the settlement. The defendant, "for a further, separate and distinct defense," pleaded in one paragraph that Rifici never retained the plaintiff as her attorney to prosecute this action against the defendant, and in another paragraph that, upon the settlement of said action with Rifici by the defendant, the said defendant did not agree to pay the plaintiff for his services as attorney in said case, and in another paragraph that an agreement, if any, made by the defendant for payment of the attorney's fees was void under the Statute of Frauds. This appeal is from an order denying plaintiff's motion to strike out such first and second paragraphs on the ground that they do not constitute new matter, that they are unauthorized as new matter, and that defendant be compelled to specifically state the allegations contained in each of the paragraphs as a separate defense. Examination of the pleadings shows that the defendant in its strict answer to the complaint denied both of the allegations now denied in the further, separate and distinct defense.

It is well settled that a specific denial cannot be included in an affirmative defense unless essential to make that defense complete and available, otherwise it may be stricken out on motion. ( Haffen v. Tribune Association, 126 App. Div. 675, and authorities cited.) I think that under these authorities and also that of Stieffel v. Tolhurst ( 55 App. Div. 532), the order must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to strike out granted, with costs.

HIRSCHBERG, P.J., WOODWARD, BURR and CARR, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.


Summaries of

Oishei v. New York Taxicab Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 4, 1910
136 App. Div. 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)
Case details for

Oishei v. New York Taxicab Co.

Case Details

Full title:ACHILLE J. OISHEI, Appellant, v . NEW YORK TAXICAB COMPANY, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 4, 1910

Citations

136 App. Div. 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1910)
121 N.Y.S. 472

Citing Cases

Mendelson v. Margulies

The question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to have these allegations stricken out depends upon…