Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates

284 A.D.2d 278, 726 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 278 (Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates) 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
Lex Tenants Corp. v. Gramercy North Associates, 284 A.D.2d 278, 726 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 3, 2000, which, in an action by plaintiff cooperative corporation against defendant sponsors of the cooperative conversion arising out of defendants’ alleged breaches of the offering plan and a commercial lease between the parties, denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that the primary character of the first 14 causes of action in the original complaint, all of which related only to the offering plan, was legal in nature, notwithstanding that two of these causes of action originally demanded an accounting. The so-called accountings were sought not for purposes of equity but merely to determine the amount of money damages necessary to fully compensate plaintiff, and, accordingly, did not result in a waiver of the right to a jury trial (see, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v Spinale, 177 AD2d 315). The motion court also correctly held that no such waiver resulted from plaintiff’s 15th cause of action seeking rescission of the commercial lease it gave defendants at the time of the cooperative closing. The alleged breaches of the lease arise out of events that occurred after the conversion, and are essentially unrelated to the alleged breaches of the offering plan, notwithstanding that plaintiff’s claims with respect to these two separate instruments may involve overlapping proof (see, Matter of Aronoff, 171 Misc 2d 172, 176, citing, inter alia, Regan v Martindale, 72 AD2d 676; cf., Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.], 40 NY2d 788, 791-792). Accordingly, legal relief for breaches of the offering plan and equitable relief for breaches of the lease could be sought in a single complaint without waiver of the right to a jury trial (CPLR 4102 [c]). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Fuoco Group, LLP v. Weisman & Co.
201 N.Y.S.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Webster v. Forest Hills Care Ctr., LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 6289 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Hughes v. LaSalle Bank, N.A.
419 F. Supp. 2d 605 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Bressler v. Kalow
13 A.D.3d 70 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Carlingford Center Point Associates v. MR Realty Associates
4 A.D.3d 179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 278, 726 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lex-tenants-corp-v-gramercy-north-associates-nyappdiv-2001.