Gale v. Ryan

New York Supreme Court

Gale v. Ryan

180 Misc. 126, 38 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2239

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 Misc. 126 (Gale v. Ryan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gale v. Ryan, 180 Misc. 126, 38 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2239 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Levy, J.

Implicit in the language of subdivision 5 of section 426 of the Civil Practice Act and of subdivision 3 of rule II of the New York County Supreme Court Rules for Trial Terms, is the requirement that the note of issue and the jury demand shall be separate. Plaintiff did fail to serve a separate jury demand with the note of issue in compliance with that section and rule. The reference in the note of issue that the cause was to be tried before a jury is of no avail, since the failure to timely serve a separate jury demand indicated an abandonment of plaintiff’s intention that the trial' should proceed before a jury. Bakopoulos v. Bank of Athens Trust Co. (285 N. Y. 451) is distinguishable, since there the plaintiff on each occasion did serve a separate jury demand, together with the note of issue, thus giving the requisite notice of intention in strict compliance with the statute. The motion to strike is therefore granted, and the cause placed on the Non-Jury Reserve Calendar for February 27.1942. Order filed.

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

Levy, J.

Implicit in the language of subdivision 5 of section 426 of the Civil Practice Act and of subdivision 3 of rule II of the New York County Supreme Court Rules for Trial Terms, is the requirement that the note of issue and the jury demand shall be separate. Plaintiff did fail to serve a separate jury demand with the note of issue in compliance with that section and rule. The reference in the note of issue that the cause was to be tried before a jury is of no avail, since the failure to timely serve a separate jury demand indicated an abandonment of plaintiff’s intention that the trial' should proceed before a jury. Bakopoulos v. Bank of Athens Trust Co. (285 N. Y. 451) is distinguishable, since there the plaintiff on each occasion did serve a separate jury demand, together with the note of issue, thus giving the requisite notice of intention in strict compliance with the statute. The motion to strike is therefore granted, and the cause placed on the Non-Jury Reserve Calendar for February 27.1942. Order filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Misc. 126, 38 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1942 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gale-v-ryan-nysupct-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack