Azoulay v. Cassin

103 A.D.2d 836, 478 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19481
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 30, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 836 (Azoulay v. Cassin) 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
Azoulay v. Cassin, 103 A.D.2d 836, 478 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

— In an action denominated as one for an accounting based upon a breach of an alleged agreement creating a partnership or joint venture, and for other equitable relief, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J,), entered September 15, 1983, as granted plaintiff’s motion to strike his jury demand. H Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s jury demand is denied and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, is directed to restore the action to the Jury Calendar. H The joinder of legal and equitable claims by a plaintiff does not deprive a defendant of his right to a jury trial of those legal claims triable by a jury as a matter of constitutional and/or statutory right. While in this case, the plaintiff has demanded an accounting, in reality, the basic issues in the action are the existence of a contract, whether it was breached, conversion of funds, and title to real property, each of which is triable by jury upon proper demand. A plaintiff, by artful pleading, cannot deprive a defendant of a jury trial upon proper demand, by characterizing his claim as equitable and by limiting his demand to equitable relief (see Gordon v Continental Cas. Co., 91 AD2d 987). Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ratto v. Oliva
2021 NY Slip Op 03860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
KNET, Inc. v. Ruocco
2016 NY Slip Op 8853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Le Bel v. Donovan
96 A.D.3d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wentworth v. Hedson
248 F.R.D. 123 (E.D. New York, 2008)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Sparacio
25 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Arrow Communication Laboratories, Inc. v. Pico Products, Inc.
219 A.D.2d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Chauvin v. Keniry
216 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
R.C.P.S. Associates v. Karam Developers
213 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Hausner v. Mendelow
198 A.D.2d 210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale
177 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A.D.2d 836, 478 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azoulay-v-cassin-nyappdiv-1984.