Achidov v. ICD Group International Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Achidov v. ICD Group International Ltd.

289 A.D.2d 74, 734 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 74 (Achidov v. ICD Group International Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Achidov v. ICD Group International Ltd., 289 A.D.2d 74, 734 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ jury demand was properly stricken since determination of all but the second of their four causes of action in this action arising out of the parties’ joint venture will “ ‘imperatively require’ ” examination of the joint venture’s accounts (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 233-234; see, CPLR 4101; Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 AD2d 107, 115). Since defendants did not serve a notice of appeal or cross appeal, we decline to consider the claimed points of error they presently raise. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ jury demand was properly stricken since determination of all but the second of their four causes of action in this action arising out of the parties’ joint venture will “ ‘imperatively require’ ” examination of the joint venture’s accounts (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 233-234; see, CPLR 4101; Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 AD2d 107, 115). Since defendants did not serve a notice of appeal or cross appeal, we decline to consider the claimed points of error they presently raise. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 74, 734 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/achidov-v-icd-group-international-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack