Muhl v. Vesta Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muhl v. Vesta Fire Insurance

297 A.D.2d 213, 745 N.Y.2d 691, 745 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7778

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 213 (Muhl v. Vesta Fire Insurance) 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

Muhl v. Vesta Fire Insurance, 297 A.D.2d 213, 745 N.Y.2d 691, 745 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Over defendant’s opposition, the IAS court initially granted plaintiffs motion, in October 2000, to sever certain (Pool I) claims for referral to a referee; but in his subsequently filed note of issue, dated February 2001, plaintiff inexplicably demanded a jury trial on that issue. Two months later, plaintiff moved to amend the note of issue to omit his request for a jury trial.

Once a party has demanded a jury trial, he may not withdraw that demand without the consent of the other parties (CPLR 4102 [a]). In granting plaintiffs motion to amend the note of issue, the IAS court found lack of prejudice to defendant (see, CPLR 4102 [e]) based on the circumstance that the court had already ordered this issue to be tried by a referee. However, that prior referral order was recently reversed on appeal by this Court (288 AD2d 108), subsequent to the IAS court’s latest ruling. Defendant thus would be prejudiced by losing its constitutional right to a jury trial on this issue of money damages. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Over defendant’s opposition, the IAS court initially granted plaintiffs motion, in October 2000, to sever certain (Pool I) claims for referral to a referee; but in his subsequently filed note of issue, dated February 2001, plaintiff inexplicably demanded a jury trial on that issue. Two months later, plaintiff moved to amend the note of issue to omit his request for a jury trial.

Once a party has demanded a jury trial, he may not withdraw that demand without the consent of the other parties (CPLR 4102 [a]). In granting plaintiffs motion to amend the note of issue, the IAS court found lack of prejudice to defendant (see, CPLR 4102 [e]) based on the circumstance that the court had already ordered this issue to be tried by a referee. However, that prior referral order was recently reversed on appeal by this Court (288 AD2d 108), subsequent to the IAS court’s latest ruling. Defendant thus would be prejudiced by losing its constitutional right to a jury trial on this issue of money damages. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 213, 745 N.Y.2d 691, 745 N.Y.S.2d 691, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhl-v-vesta-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack