You are here: / / THE MOTION TO STRIKE INFLAMMATORY ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT SHOULD...

THE MOTION TO STRIKE INFLAMMATORY ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; WHETHER EVIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGATIONS IS DISCOVERABLE OR ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL IS NOT AFFECTED BY GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to strike inflammatory allegations from the complaint should have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant asserting causes of action for defamation, defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gender-motivated violence under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (Administrative Code of NYC § 10-111 et seq.).

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to strike certain inflammatory factual allegations from the first amended complaint. The allegations at issue, which employed rhetoric or detailed defendant’s misconduct toward other women and his relationships with notorious third parties, were scandalous and prejudicial, and not necessary to establish any element of plaintiff’s causes of action (see CPLR 3024 [b] …). CPLR 3024 (b) motions do not judge whether matters will be discoverable or admissible at trial … . Ganieva v Black, 2023 NY Slip Op 02380, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to strike inflammatory allegations from the complaint should have been granted. Granting such a motion has no effect on whether the related evidence is discoverable or admissible at trial.

 

You might also like
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION.
LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE O
A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO PROVISIONS OF THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED A TRIAL TO RESOLVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEFECTIVE DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE (FIRST DEPT).
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY.
“Sophisticated and Well-Counseled Entity” Did Not Make Prima Facie Claim of Fraud; No Due Diligence Demonstrated
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FOR TAX PREPARATION SERVICES (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE “AGE 29 LAW” MEDICAL-INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PLAINTIFF’S CHILD WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S PLAN UNTIL THE CHILD TURNED 29; THEREFORE THE STIPULATED ORDER IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE CHILD UNDER THE PLAN FOR AS LONG AS THE LAW ALLOWS REQUIRED COVERAGE TO AGE 29; THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A CUT-OFF AT AGE 26 PURSUANT TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ON LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN... THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THAT...