Montalvo v. Netta Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montalvo v. Netta Realty Corp.

51 A.D.2d 1005, 381 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11767

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1005 (Montalvo v. Netta Realty Corp.) 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

Montalvo v. Netta Realty Corp., 51 A.D.2d 1005, 381 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action (1) to recover damages for breach of contract and (2) for rescission of a lease, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme [1006]*1006Court, Queens County, dated December 10, 1975, which denied their motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleges fraudulent inducement of the contract which they seek to rescind and also seeks money damages. This is an equitable claim notwithstanding the demand for money damages (see CPLR 3002, subd [e]). Having joined legal and equitable claims, plaintiffs have waived their right to a jury trial (see Petra Cablevision Corp. v Teleprompter Corp., 49 AD2d 888; Heller v Hacken, 40 AD2d 1012). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action (1) to recover damages for breach of contract and (2) for rescission of a lease, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme [1006]*1006Court, Queens County, dated December 10, 1975, which denied their motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleges fraudulent inducement of the contract which they seek to rescind and also seeks money damages. This is an equitable claim notwithstanding the demand for money damages (see CPLR 3002, subd [e]). Having joined legal and equitable claims, plaintiffs have waived their right to a jury trial (see Petra Cablevision Corp. v Teleprompter Corp., 49 AD2d 888; Heller v Hacken, 40 AD2d 1012). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Christ and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1005, 381 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montalvo-v-netta-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack