Chauvin v. Keniry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chauvin v. Keniry

216 A.D.2d 753, 628 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6528

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

DecidedJune 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 753 (Chauvin v. Keniry) 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

Chauvin v. Keniry, 216 A.D.2d 753, 628 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Monserrate, J.), entered December 16, 1993 in Saratoga County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

On this appeal, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in striking his demand for a jury trial. We agree. In determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, the relevant inquiry is whether the overall nature and character of the action is equitable or legal in nature (see, e.g., Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315, 316; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232). Our review of the record persuades us that the crux of plaintiff’s claim sounds in conversion and breach of contract and that his request for an accounting was simply incidental to the money damages sought (see, Abrams v Rogers, 195 AD2d 349, 349-350; Azoulay v Cassin, 103 AD2d 836). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the remaining issues raised by plaintiff on appeal.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for a jury trial.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Monserrate, J.), entered December 16, 1993 in Saratoga County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

On this appeal, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in striking his demand for a jury trial. We agree. In determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, the relevant inquiry is whether the overall nature and character of the action is equitable or legal in nature (see, e.g., Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315, 316; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232). Our review of the record persuades us that the crux of plaintiff’s claim sounds in conversion and breach of contract and that his request for an accounting was simply incidental to the money damages sought (see, Abrams v Rogers, 195 AD2d 349, 349-350; Azoulay v Cassin, 103 AD2d 836). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the remaining issues raised by plaintiff on appeal.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for a jury trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 753, 628 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chauvin-v-keniry-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack