Short answer. You can deny just part of it. Rule 8, Section 10 lets you deny only a portion of an averment, provided you specify how much of it is true and material and deny only the remainder. You cannot simply deny the whole paragraph if you actually agree with part of what it says.
What the law says
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial.
Rule 8, Section 10 — Specific denial. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Rule 8, Section 10 — Specific denial. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made [to] the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
Rule 8, Section 10 — Specific denial. Read the full provision →
The general duty to specify what you deny
Rule 8, Section 10 opens with a general obligation: a defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial. This means a defendant is expected to identify precisely which factual allegations are being disputed, and, where practicable, to explain the basis for disputing them, rather than issuing a vague, unspecific denial of an entire paragraph.
The rule for denying only part of an averment
The article then addresses your exact situation. It states that where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. So if a paragraph in the complaint contains both something you accept as true and something you dispute, the rule requires you to separate the two — acknowledging what is true and material, and denying only the part you actually disagree with.
What 'sufficient to form a belief' looks like as an alternative
The article also recognizes a third option beyond admitting or denying outright: where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. This applies where you genuinely do not know enough to say whether an allegation is true, and stating that plainly operates as a denial under the rule.
Why a blanket denial of the whole paragraph can backfire
A blanket denial of an entire paragraph, when part of it is actually true, does not match what this article requires. The rule is built around specificity — identifying which portions you accept and which you contest — so denying more than you actually dispute risks misrepresenting your position on the parts you do not really contest, rather than simply protecting you by casting the broadest possible denial over the whole averment.