A New York court has ruled against a motion to strike scandalous allegations in a legal dispute between two neighboring homeowners. The case, Jeganathan v. Molloy, centers on accusations made by Isaac G. Jeganathan, the trustee of the Jeganathan Family Irrevocable Trust, against John Molloy and Michelle Thomas Molloy. The ruling allows Jeganathan's claims to move forward, which could have implications for how similar disputes are handled in the future.
The court's decision, issued on March 24, 2026, by Justice Anthony R. Molé, is significant as it maintains the integrity of the allegations made by Jeganathan in his complaint. The case highlights ongoing tensions between the two parties, who have been involved in prior litigation concerning property rights and easements.
Background
The conflict between Jeganathan and the Molloys has a history, with previous legal actions filed in 2024. The two parties own neighboring properties on October Lane in Mahopac, New York. The dispute primarily revolves around a 50-foot easement on the Molloys' property, which allows Jeganathan and others to access their property.
In the earlier case, the court dismissed the action against Jeganathan due to defective service of the summons and complaint, which meant the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Following this dismissal, Jeganathan filed a new complaint on December 2, 2025, asserting five causes of action against the Molloys, including abuse of process and tortious interference.
The Ruling
The court ruled on the Molloys' motion to strike what they deemed scandalous or prejudicial material from Jeganathan's complaint. The motion claimed that the allegations were unnecessary and irrelevant, asserting that they were based on hearsay and time-barred claims. However, Justice Molé found that the defendants did not specify which parts of the complaint they wanted to strike.
The court stated, "Motions to strike scandalous or prejudicial matter from pleadings are generally disfavored. Whether to strike allegedly scandalous or prejudicial matter from a pleading in a given instance is left to the discretion of the trial court."
Justice Molé emphasized that the allegations in Jeganathan's complaint could be relevant to the causes of action he presented. The court noted that the defendants' request to strike nearly all allegations was overly broad and did not meet the necessary legal standards for such a motion.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing dispute between Jeganathan and the Molloys. By allowing the complaint to stand, the court affirms the importance of allowing parties to present their full allegations in civil litigation. This decision may also serve as a precedent for future cases where one party seeks to strike allegations they find unfavorable.
The outcome of this case could influence how homeowners and property owners approach disputes over easements and property rights. It reinforces the idea that courts will carefully consider the relevance of allegations before allowing them to be removed from legal pleadings.
What's Next
Following the court's decision, the Molloys are expected to file a responsive pleading to Jeganathan's complaint. The case will continue to progress through the court system, and further developments may arise as the parties prepare for trial. Details regarding any potential appeals were not available in the court filing.