Grobman v. Freiman

• Decision Date: 29 May 1956
• Citation: 3 Misc.2d 656,152 N.Y.S.2d 898
• Parties: Sol GROBMAN, Plaintiff, v. William FREIMAN and Saul Lerner, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 898

152 N.Y.S.2d 898

3 Misc.2d 656

Sol GROBMAN, Plaintiff, v. William FREIMAN and Saul Lerner, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County, Part I.

May 29, 1956.

Nathaniel Greenbaum, Brooklyn, for plaintiff.

Louis J. Gribetz, New York City (Lester Lyons, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Freiman.

Rosenblatt & Enselman (Isidor Enselman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Lerner.

MATTHEW M. LEVY, Justice.

Section 241 of the Civil Practice Act provides that '[e]very pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts, without unnecessary repetition, on which the party pleading relies, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.' Rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice provides that '[i]f any matter, contained in a pleading, be sham, frivolous, irrelevant, redundant, repetitious, unnecessary, impertinent or scandalous or may tend to prejudice, embarass or delay the fair trial of the action, the court may order such matter struck out, in which case the pleading will be deemed amended accordingly, or the court may order an amended pleading to be served omitting the objectionable matter.' Each defendant moves against the amended complaint on the ground that it violates both the section and the rule, and on the further ground that the amended complaint as served did not conform with the leave previously granted by the court for such service--that is that the new pleading must be 'in compliance with the requirements of section 241, C.P.A. and Rule 103, R.C.P.'

The plaintiff's amended complaint attempts to set forth a cause of action for damages for breach of contract against one defendant as a joint venturer, against another defendant for inducing the breach, and against both defendants for a wrongful conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his profits in the venture. The original complaint contained 68 paragraphs and the amended complaint contains 61 paragraphs. Comparison of the two pleadings shows that there is no substantial difference between them, although some few items of improper matter were eliminated when the complaint was amended. The amended complaint still contains, however, a mass of evidentiary matter, a multiplicity of minute, irrelevant, repetitious, redundant and unnecessary details. In many of its paragraphs it purports to give the substance of conferences among various parties and witnesses, describes in prolixity methods of transportation of the parties, means of communication, places of discussion, incidental conferences, and much other objectionable matter, too voluminous to set forth here at length. Suffice it to say that, in my view, the amended complaint comes squarely within the condemnation of the statute and the rule and the prior decision in this case. In the circumstances, this 'court should not be compelled to wade through [the 61 paragraphs of the pleading] to pick out an allegation here and there, which, pieced together with other statements taken from another part of the complaint, will state a cause of action' or to make a more 'prolonged study [than I already have made] of a long, tiresome, tedious, prolix, involved, and loosely drawn complaint in an effort to save it'. Isaacs v. Washougal Clothing Co., Inc., 233 App.Div. 568, 572, 253 N.Y.S. 387, 393. Nor shall I undertake, in these circumstances, to note for the record my selection from this mass of verbiage of the many allegations that have no place in the complaint. I shall, instead, strike the entire complaint and require the service of a properly amended pleading. Leffingwell v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 257 App.Div. 311, 12 N.Y.S.2d 890; Tankoos v. Conford Realty Co., Inc., 248 App.Div. 614, 287 N.Y.S. 823.

The necessity that the defendants find in having to make these motions addressed to the amended complaint in this case emphasizes--and from another...