From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc. v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 2, 1957
20 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

Opinion

         Diversity action against city involving claim for compensation for extra work performed under contract for dam construction. Upon motion of defendant to strike complaint on grounds that it was fraught with immaterial matter and that it failed to state plainly claim upon which relief could be granted, and alternatively, for more definite statement of claims, the District Court, Palmieri, J., held that where, though complaint was long and prolix, defendant had notice of claims and should have been able to file responsive pleading, and in view of pre-trial discovery procedures, to prepare adequately for trial, motions would be denied.

         Motions denied.

          Robert L. Graham, Jr. and Robert W. Knox, New York City, for plaintiff.

          Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for defendant.


          PALMIERI, District Judge.

         This is a motion to strike the complaint on the grounds that it is fraught with immaterial matter and that it fails to state plainly a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, the defendant moves for a more definite statement of the plaintiffs' claims. See Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 12(e) and (f), 28 U.S.C.A. The motions are denied.

         The litigation involves a dispute over a contract for extensive dam construction work entered into in 1950 between the plaintiffs and the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York (hereinafter called ‘ Board’ ). The plaintiffs seek compensation for extra work caused by alleged breaches by the Board of its contractual duties to the plaintiffs. After having exhausted their administrative remedies through three years of proceedings, the plaintiffs brought their action in this court, invoking our diversity jurisdiction.

         The complaint is a long one and, in parts, inclined to a narrative recital of the events. The artful pleader might regard it as prolix and tautological and perhaps open to an imputation of constructive fraud in paragraph 8. However, the defendant has certainly been given notice of plaintiffs' claims and should be able to file a responsive pleading. Pre-trial discovery procedures are available to defendant and it should have no difficulty in clarifying and defining the issues and in preparing adequately for trial.

         Accordingly, defendant's motions are denied. Submit order on notice.


Summaries of

Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc. v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jan 2, 1957
20 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)
Case details for

Carlo Bianchi & Co., Inc. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CARLO BIANCHI and COMPANY, Inc., Central Construction Co., Lawrence…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jan 2, 1957

Citations

20 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

Citing Cases

Bir v. McKesson Corp.

This argument lacks merit for several reasons, including that (1) it is conclusory, (2) Defendants have not…