Mulder v. Donaldson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mulder v. Donaldson

261 A.D.2d 134, 689 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4563

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, [135]*135New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 15, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the money damages that defendant seeks in some of its counterclaims will not protect it from plaintiffs continued use of allegedly confidential information and documents, it is clear that the thrust of defendant’s counterclaims, the only claims remaining to be litigated, is equitable in nature, and thus plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial (see, Downtown Art Co. v Zimmerman, 227 AD2d 226). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lemer and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, [135]*135New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 15, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the money damages that defendant seeks in some of its counterclaims will not protect it from plaintiffs continued use of allegedly confidential information and documents, it is clear that the thrust of defendant’s counterclaims, the only claims remaining to be litigated, is equitable in nature, and thus plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial (see, Downtown Art Co. v Zimmerman, 227 AD2d 226). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lemer and Rubin, JJ.

Mulder v. Donaldson, 261 A.D.2d 134, 689 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

261 A.D.2d 134 (Mulder v. Donaldson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related