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

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

DecidedMay 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 134 (Mulder v. Donaldson) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 134, 689 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulder-v-donaldson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack