Krulwich v. Posner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krulwich v. Posner

272 A.D.2d 160, 709 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s jury demand except as to the fourth cause of action and seventh counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite its inclusion of a demand for damages, the instant complaint seeks relief primarily equitable in nature, its principal objectives being the removal of defendant as managing partner of the parties’ partnership and the dissolution of such partnership. The parties’ respective demands for damages being little more than incidental to the predominant, equitable purposes of the litigation, the IAS Court properly granted plaintiffs motion (see, Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 261 AD2d 134, 135; Kurzner v Sutton Owners Corp., 245 AD2d 101; Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 234 AD2d 233, 234). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s jury demand except as to the fourth cause of action and seventh counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Despite its inclusion of a demand for damages, the instant complaint seeks relief primarily equitable in nature, its principal objectives being the removal of defendant as managing partner of the parties’ partnership and the dissolution of such partnership. The parties’ respective demands for damages being little more than incidental to the predominant, equitable purposes of the litigation, the IAS Court properly granted plaintiffs motion (see, Mulder v Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, 261 AD2d 134, 135; Kurzner v Sutton Owners Corp., 245 AD2d 101; Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu, 234 AD2d 233, 234). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Krulwich v. Posner, 272 A.D.2d 160, 709 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 160 (Krulwich v. Posner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related