In re Shulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shulman

43 A.D.2d 929, 353 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5622

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 929 (In re Shulman) 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

In re Shulman, 43 A.D.2d 929, 353 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on September 5, 1973, granting respondents’ motion to strike the jury demand herein and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion to strike the jury demand with respect to the discovery proceeding initiated pursuant to SCPA 2103 (subd. 1), and, otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This court has already held herein that “petitioner’s proof [in the discovery proceeding] was sufficient to raise [930]*930an issue of title to the money and other personal property described in the petition”. (33 A D 2d 666.) The issue of title is formally raised in the answer thereafter served. It follows that appellant is entitled to a jury trial thereon (Matter of Comfort, 234 App. Div. 19). Nor has appellant waived her right to such jury trial. She did pot join the equitable claim asserted by her in the Supreme Court with the legal claim asserted by her in the Surrogate’s Court. This court, not appellant, directed that both claims be tried in the Supreme Court, Bronx County. Concur — -Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on September 5, 1973, granting respondents’ motion to strike the jury demand herein and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the motion to strike the jury demand with respect to the discovery proceeding initiated pursuant to SCPA 2103 (subd. 1), and, otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This court has already held herein that “petitioner’s proof [in the discovery proceeding] was sufficient to raise [930]*930an issue of title to the money and other personal property described in the petition”. (33 A D 2d 666.) The issue of title is formally raised in the answer thereafter served. It follows that appellant is entitled to a jury trial thereon (Matter of Comfort, 234 App. Div. 19). Nor has appellant waived her right to such jury trial. She did pot join the equitable claim asserted by her in the Supreme Court with the legal claim asserted by her in the Surrogate’s Court. This court, not appellant, directed that both claims be tried in the Supreme Court, Bronx County. Concur — -Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 929, 353 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shulman-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack