
    HARDING, Respondent, v. STEICH, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    June 13, 1913.)
    Action by Simon j. Harding against John P. Steich.
   riTTT>T, PER CURIAM.

„ . , . Order reversed, so far as it strikes out the seventh and eighth subdivisions of the answer, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The answer is a mere narrative of a transaction by defendant, and therefore is in such form that it does not properly deny the allegations of the complaint, or present a defense or counterclaim to it. The eighth subdivision is unavailable, as the earlier admissions are part of the narrative and qualified by its statements, and hence the denial is not general or specific. But it is inconsistent to strike out a portion of a pleading at the instant the whole pleading is declared frivolous, and hence insufficient. If defendant desires to plead either a simpie defense or an affirmative counterclaim, he should so frame his matter, and designate it either as a defense or a counterclaim, —  