In Beldock v. Soho House New York Inc., No. 158444/2023, 2026 WL 1880202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 23, 2026), an employment discrimination case, the court granted defendant’s motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint – specifically, correspondence between counsel – under § 3024(b).
From the decision:
Under CPLR § 3024(b), “a party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading.” In evaluating a motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action. Trial courts are afforded discretion in determining whether an allegation is scandalous or prejudicial. If the scandalous and prejudicial allegations are inflammatory and are not necessary to establish any elements of a plaintiff’s claim and tend to prejudice a defendant, a motion to strike should be granted.
Defendants argue that Paragraphs 93 and 94 are irrelevant because they concern correspondence between counsel over a legal disagreement. Specifically, this legal disagreement concerns the applicability of N.Y. Admin Code § 8-107(13). This correspondence occurred after the alleged actions which are the subject of Plaintiff’s claims and have no bearing on the elements of Plaintiffs’ claims. The allegations’ irrelevance is highlighted by the fact that the paragraphs which Defendants seek to strike do not allege any conduct committed by Defendants, In addition to being irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants argue that these paragraphs are prejudicial as they could lead a jury to believe Defendants had violated the law as a factual matter instead of evidencing a disagreement over the law’s application between counsel.
Plaintiff argues that this Court’s order on April 14, 2026, granting Plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint resolved the issue of whether the pleadings were prejudicial and that Defendant’s motion to strike Paragraphs 93 and 94 is an attempt to reargue this Court’s decision. This is an incorrect characterization of this Court’s order. This Court allowed Plaintiff to amend her complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs amendments were not palpably insufficient as a matter of law, and Defendants failed to show that they would be substantially prejudiced by the amendment or that the amendments were patently devoid of merit. That analysis was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b). In granting leave to amend, this Court did not issue a decision on whether Paragraphs 93 and 94 were scandalous or prejudicial within the meaning of CPLR § 3024(b) because that issue was not properly before the Court.
Paragraphs 93 and 94 do not concern any allegations related to any element of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, paragraphs 93 and 94 are irrelevant. Additionally, these paragraphs are prejudicial as the irrelevant allegations regarding Defendants’ attorney’s correspondence about corrective action may unduly inflame a jury into believing that Defendants’ attorney’s legal position was incorrect as a matter of fact.
The court concluded that, “[g]iven that these paragraphs are irrelevant and prejudicial, Defendants’ motion to strike Paragraphs 93 and 94 from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is granted.”