Glenesk v. Guidance Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1971 |
| Citation | 321 N.Y.S.2d 685,36 A.D.2d 852 |
| Parties | William B. GLENESK, Respondent, v. GUIDANCE REALTY CORP. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harvey L. Strelzin, New York City, for respondent.
John J. Walsh, Brooklyn, for appellants.
Before RABIN, P.J., and MUNDER, LATHAM, CHRIST and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendants, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 11, 1970, as denied their motion, pursuant to rule 3042 of the CPLR, to modify plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars.
Order modified by (1) deleting plaintiff's demands numbered 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 18, as academic; and (2) by striking from the answer, Sua sponte, defendants' separate and distinct defenses contained in paragraphs numbered 6, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22, with leave to replead such defenses in accordance with this memorandum. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Defendants shall serve such amended defenses within 20 days after entry of the order hereon.
Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against defendants, to wit: (1) damages resulting from his allegedly unlawful eviction by defendants from the latters' apartment; (2) damages to his property resulting from the eviction; (3) damages for increased rent paid by him because of the eviction; and (4) for an order granting him repossession of the subject apartment.
In the ten paragraphs of the answer referred to Supra, defendants, without pleading any supporting facts, interpose as separate and distinct (affirmative) defenses, that: (1) the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action alleged; (2) the plaintiff is barred from obtaining relief under the third and fourth causes of action because of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel; (3) he is likewise barred from obtaining relief under the fourth cause of action because of laches; and (4) as a partial defense to the third cause of action, that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligation to mitigate damages.
In our opinion, such pleadings, being totally bereft of factual data, are fatally deficient and should be struck out by this court Sua sponte, even though plaintiff has demanded particulars with respect thereto. Defenses which merely plead conclusions of law without supporting facts are insufficient (MacIver v. George Braziller, Inc., 32 Misc.2d 477, 224 N.Y.S.2d 364; CPLR 3018 subd. (b); cf. Morgenstern v. Cohon, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mouhlas Realty, LLC v Koutelos, 2009 NY Slip Op 30893(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/7/2009)
... ... See, D.B.D. Nominee, Inc., v. 814 10th Ave. Corp., 109 A.D.2d 668, 669 (2nd Dept. 1985). The proponent of a summary judgment motion must tender ... Lorenz, 70 A.D.2d 582, 416 N.Y.S.2d 55; Glenesk v. Guidance Realty Corp., 36 A.D.2d 852, 853, 321 N.Y.S.2d 685) ... CPLR 3211(e) ... ...
-
Moran Enters., Inc. v. Hurst
... ... Corp. v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 415, 421, 334 N.Y.S.2d 388, 285 N.E.2d ... Vil. Assoc. v. G & E Realty, Inc., 56 A.D.3d 372, 372373, 868 N.Y.S.2d 36;Plemmenou v. Arvanitakis, 39 ... Petracca, 305 A.D.2d 566, 567, 760 N.Y.S.2d 513;Glenesk v. Guidance Realty Corp., 36 A.D.2d 852, 853, 321 N.Y.S.2d 685), albeit ... ...
-
Waldman v. Cohen
... ... 624, 276 N.Y.S. 532 Florzak v. Hempstead Bus Corp., 29 N.Y.S.2d 271 ) ... While the above rules are clear ... Realty Corp. v. Abel, 28 A.D.2d 50, 281 N.Y.S.2d 115, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 963, 295 ... estoppel is not applicable to the facts in this case (see, Glenesk" v. Guidance Realty Corp., 36 A.D.2d 852, 321 N.Y.S.2d 685) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Kromer v. Kromer
... ... Surlak, 95 A.D.2d 371, 383, 466 N.Y.S.2d 461; Glenesk v ... Guidance Realty Corp., 36 A.D.2d 852, 321 N.Y.S.2d 685). A ... ...