Opinion
December 20, 1961
In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 7, 1961 which: (1) granted the wife's motion for temporary alimony and counsel fees; and (2) denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it fails to comply with rule 280 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in that it fails to specify with reasonable certainty the nature and circumstances of his alleged misconduct and the time and place of each act alleged to have been committed by him. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The complaint contains two causes of action. The first is based on defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment of plaintiff by reason of his engaging in abnormal sexual practices. The second is based both on defendant's abandonment of the plaintiff and his failure to properly provide for her support. While the first cause of action as alleged may be deficient in that it fails to comply with the provisions of rule 280, the second is good as to the abandonment; as to that ground its allegations are sufficient to comply with the rule. Since the motion to dismiss the complaint is addressed to the entire complaint and since one cause of action is sufficient, the motion was properly denied ( Halio v. Lurie, 15 A.D.2d 62; Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N.Y. 79, 84). Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.