Beck v. 200 Wyndham Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beck v. 200 Wyndham Associates

61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10243

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 804 (Beck v. 200 Wyndham Associates) 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

Beck v. 200 Wyndham Associates, 61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 22, 1977, which denied its motion for leave to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. It appears that the jury demand was at most six days late under the provisions of CPLR 4102 (subd [a]). The delay of some 33 days between the attempted filing of the jury demand and the return date of the motion was not inordinate. In our opinion, these "facts indicate not only the absence of any act constituting a waiver of the right to a jury trial—an indispensable requisite to a finding that the right has been waived (Bakopoulos v. Bank of Athens Trust Co., 285 N. Y. 451; Schwartz v. Sunlight Apts., 274 App. Div. 901; Morabito v. Solomon, 278 App. Div. 657; Robertson v. United Plastering, 15 A D 2d 672); but on the contrary, show affirmatively a clear intention to have the jury trial” (Denig v Seelig, 17 AD2d 948, 949). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 22, 1977, which denied its motion for leave to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. It appears that the jury demand was at most six days late under the provisions of CPLR 4102 (subd [a]). The delay of some 33 days between the attempted filing of the jury demand and the return date of the motion was not inordinate. In our opinion, these "facts indicate not only the absence of any act constituting a waiver of the right to a jury trial—an indispensable requisite to a finding that the right has been waived (Bakopoulos v. Bank of Athens Trust Co., 285 N. Y. 451; Schwartz v. Sunlight Apts., 274 App. Div. 901; Morabito v. Solomon, 278 App. Div. 657; Robertson v. United Plastering, 15 A D 2d 672); but on the contrary, show affirmatively a clear intention to have the jury trial” (Denig v Seelig, 17 AD2d 948, 949). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 804, 402 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-200-wyndham-associates-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack