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

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

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 160 (Krulwich v. Posner) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 160, 709 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krulwich-v-posner-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack