Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

227 A.D.2d 226, 642 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5155

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

DecidedMay 14, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 226 (Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman) 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

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman, 227 A.D.2d 226, 642 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Aside from its contract claims, the main relief plaintiff seeks is an injunction against defendant’s continuing her use of the Soho Booking name and logo. Defendant initially asserted a counterclaim for similar relief as against plaintiff, but withdrew it without prejudice. The IAS Court correctly held that "the primary character of the case” is equitable (Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315, 316), as neither party would obtain full and complete relief by a judgment for a sum of money (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232). Defendant’s withdrawal without prejudice of her equitable claim neither changed the character of the action nor revived any right she may have had for trial by jury (Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Aside from its contract claims, the main relief plaintiff seeks is an injunction against defendant’s continuing her use of the Soho Booking name and logo. Defendant initially asserted a counterclaim for similar relief as against plaintiff, but withdrew it without prejudice. The IAS Court correctly held that "the primary character of the case” is equitable (Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315, 316), as neither party would obtain full and complete relief by a judgment for a sum of money (Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232). Defendant’s withdrawal without prejudice of her equitable claim neither changed the character of the action nor revived any right she may have had for trial by jury (Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 226, 642 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downtown-art-co-v-zimmerman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack