Hebranko v. Bioline Laboratories, Inc.

149 A.D.2d 567, 540 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4965
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 567 (Hebranko v. Bioline Laboratories, Inc.) 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
Hebranko v. Bioline Laboratories, Inc., 149 A.D.2d 567, 540 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an indemnity agreement, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated May 17, 1988, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs’ jury demand.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The prevailing rule is that the deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising out of the same transaction amounts to a waiver of the right to demand a jury trial (see, CPLR 4102 [c]; Mirasola v Gilman, 104 AD2d 932; Tanen[568]*568baum v Anchor Sav. Bank, 95 AD2d 827). However, the right to a jury trial is to be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint and not by the prayer for relief (see, e.g., City of Syracuse v Hogan, 234 NY 457, 461; Ketcham v Wilbur, 218 App Div 350, 351, affd 244 NY 609; Cunningham and Sullivan, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4101, at 91). Where a plaintiff alleges facts upon which monetary damages alone will afford full relief, inclusion of a demand for equitable relief in the complaint’s prayer for relief will not constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial (see, Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 136 AD2d 229, 232; Cunningham and Sullivan, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4101, at 91).

An evaluation of the pleadings in the instant case reveals that the gravamen of the plaintiffs’ action is to recover damages for breach of an indemnity agreement. Accordingly, the character of the action is essentially legal and even though the prayer for relief contains a demand which is partially equitable in nature, an award of monetary damages only would afford a full and complete remedy to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion to strike the jury demand. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ramirez v. Garcia
2025 NY Slip Op 51757(U) (NYC Civil Court, Queens, 2025)
Blackman v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 01530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Fakiris v. Gusmar Enters., LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 08039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Zutrau v. ICE Systems, Inc.
128 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Lief v. Hill
100 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bryant v. Broadcast Music, Inc.
88 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
DiTomasso v. Plaza Apartments, Inc.
30 Misc. 3d 655 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2010)
Sullivan v. Troser Management, Inc.
75 A.D.3d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Strachman v. Palestinian Authority
73 A.D.3d 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Anesthesia Associates v. Northern Westchester Hospital Center
59 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ayromlooi v. Staten Island University Hospital
7 A.D.3d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lillianfeld v. Lichtenstein
181 Misc. 2d 571 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
Schlick v. American Business Press, Inc.
246 A.D.2d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kopel v. Chiulli
209 A.D.2d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Endervelt v. Slade
194 A.D.2d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Poley v. Rochester Community Savings Bank
184 A.D.2d 1027 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale
177 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 A.D.2d 567, 540 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hebranko-v-bioline-laboratories-inc-nyappdiv-1989.