
    David W. Hutchinson, Respondent, v. Franklin Bien, as Receiver of the Business and Property of Hazard, Hazard & Company, Appellant.
    
      Denial of allegations of a complaint “as alleged” therein—it is insufficient upon its face.
    
    An answyr denying allegations of the complaint, “as alleged” therein, limits the denial to the form of the allegations, of the complaint instead! of extending it to the substance thereof.
    The insufficiency of such an answer' is discoverable upon a mere inspection and the plaintiff is entitled to j udgment upon it as frivolous.'
    Appeal by the defendant, Franklin Bien, as receiver of the busi- • ness and property of Hazard, Hazard & Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of tlie clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of February, 1905.
    
      Josiah Canter, for the appellant.
    
      David K. Case, for the respondent.
   Miller, J. :

This is an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the answer as frivolous. The answer is as follows: “ I. On information and belief, he denies the allegations as alleged in paragraphs II, III and IV of the complaint herein.”

The vice of this answer is found in the words “as alleged,” which limit the denial to the form of the allegations of the complaint instead of denying the substance. Such a denial is clearly bad upon mere inspection, and the order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Hirschberg, P. J., Bartlett, Jenks. and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  