Fox v. Skolnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Skolnick

294 A.D.2d 225, 741 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338

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

DecidedMay 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 225 (Fox v. Skolnick) 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

Fox v. Skolnick, 294 A.D.2d 225, 741 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which, in an action for money damages alleging fraud committed by a fiduciary, denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that plaintiffs assertion of the previously dismissed cause of action for reformation did not result in a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The primary character of the action has always been legal in nature. Full and complete relief could have been provided under the facts originally pleaded with an award of money damages representing the amount that defendant allegedly underpaid for plaintiffs decedent’s business as a result of the alleged fraud (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 233-234; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315; Harris v Trustco Bank, 224 AD2d 790). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 25, 2001, which, in an action for money damages alleging fraud committed by a fiduciary, denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that plaintiffs assertion of the previously dismissed cause of action for reformation did not result in a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The primary character of the action has always been legal in nature. Full and complete relief could have been provided under the facts originally pleaded with an award of money damages representing the amount that defendant allegedly underpaid for plaintiffs decedent’s business as a result of the alleged fraud (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 233-234; Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315; Harris v Trustco Bank, 224 AD2d 790). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 225, 741 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-skolnick-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack