Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. ESPN, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. ESPN, Inc.

84 A.D.3d 469, 921 N.Y.S.2d 526

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 2011·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered February 4, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to modify a prior order that determined that plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial, [470] unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the prior order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

A review of the complaint, which alleges that defendants refused to provide certain high definition programming to plaintiff despite an express contractual obligation to do so, establishes that it seeks damages for breach of contract. Therefore, a sum of money alone can provide plaintiff with full relief, and the action may be tried by a jury (see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232 [1988]; compare Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 234 AD2d 233 [1996]; Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847 [1990]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered February 4, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to modify a prior order that determined that plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial, [470] unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the prior order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

A review of the complaint, which alleges that defendants refused to provide certain high definition programming to plaintiff despite an express contractual obligation to do so, establishes that it seeks damages for breach of contract. Therefore, a sum of money alone can provide plaintiff with full relief, and the action may be tried by a jury (see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232 [1988]; compare Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 234 AD2d 233 [1996]; Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847 [1990]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. ESPN, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 469, 921 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

84 A.D.3d 469 (Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. ESPN, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related