Matter of Weslowski v. Day

136 A.D.3d 931, 24 N.Y.S.3d 921
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 2016
Docket2015-01435
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 931 (Matter of Weslowski v. Day) 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
Matter of Weslowski v. Day, 136 A.D.3d 931, 24 N.Y.S.3d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Rockland County Records Access Appeals Officer dated November 16, 2010, the petitioner appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated October 10, 2014, which, in effect, struck his demand for a jury trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As fully set forth in our decision in a previous appeal (see Matter of Weslowski v Vanderhoef, 98 AD3d 1123 [2012]), the determination which is the subject of this proceeding conditioned the disclosure of public records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) upon the petitioner’s prepayment of certain estimated costs. In his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that determination, the petitioner seeks relief which includes a permanent injunc *932 tion against the County of Rockland to prohibit it from imposing the estimated costs and to desist from engaging in practices designed to impair his access to the requested records.

Inasmuch as the petition sought equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction, the petitioner was not entitled to a jury trial (see Di Menna v Cooper & Evans Co., 220 NY 391, 396 [1917]; Ayromlooi v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 7 AD3d 475, 475-476 [2004]; Chim Chul Yi v Marcy Realty Co., 291 AD2d 368 [2002]; City of New York v Philips, 272 AD2d 568, 568-569 [2000]; Bockino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 224 AD2d 471, 471-472 [1996]; Hausner v Mendelow, 198 AD2d 210, 210 [1993]; see also 8-4101 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac CPLR ¶ 4101.37). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, struck the petitioner’s demand for a jury trial.

Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Weinstein v. Klocke of America, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5263 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Trimarco v. Data Treasury Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 931, 24 N.Y.S.3d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-weslowski-v-day-nyappdiv-2016.