Jonke v. Foot Locker Inc.

2020 NY Slip Op 2113, 119 N.Y.S.3d 741, 181 A.D.3d 544
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 2020
Docket11310 111794/99
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 2113 (Jonke v. Foot Locker 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
Jonke v. Foot Locker Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 2113, 119 N.Y.S.3d 741, 181 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Jonke v Foot Locker Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 02113)
Jonke v Foot Locker Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 02113
Decided on March 26, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 26, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gesmer, González, JJ.

11310 111794/99

[*1]James Jonke, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The Foot Locker Inc., et al., Defendants. Foot Locker, Inc., Nonparty Appellant.


Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York (Melissa E. Byroade of counsel), for appellant.

Bernadette Panzella, P.C., New York (Bernadette Panzella of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, set the case down for a jury trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded for a determination of plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(c) and 1003 for leave to amend the caption to add or substitute nonparty appellant as successor in interest to defendant The Foot Locker, Inc.

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend has yet to be decided. In light of the liberal standard for granting leave to amend (see Obstfeld v Thermo Niton Analyzers, LLC, 168 AD3d 1080, 1084 [2d Dept 2019], the court must determine whether the proposed addition or substitution is "plainly lacking in merit" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial in any event, since he seeks to enforce a judgment against a party other than the judgment debtor, which is an equitable claim (see Matter of Colonial Sur. Co. v Lakeview Advisors, LLC, 125 AD3d 1292, 1295 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 901 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 26, 2020

CLERK



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

Related

Jonke v. Foot Locker, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 00813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Uni-Rty Corp. v. New York Guangdong Fin.
160 N.Y.S.3d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 2113, 119 N.Y.S.3d 741, 181 A.D.3d 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonke-v-foot-locker-inc-nyappdiv-2020.