Noto v. Headley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noto v. Headley

21 A.D.2d 686, 250 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787

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

DecidedMay 18, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 686 (Noto v. Headley) 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

Noto v. Headley, 21 A.D.2d 686, 250 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law (now Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, art. 15) for determination of a claim [687]*687to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1964, which, upon reargument: (1) denied his motion to transfer the action from the Equity Calendar to the Jury Calendar; and (2) granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. An action to determine title to real property is triable by a jury (CPLR 4101, suibd. 2). However, in his amended complaint the plaintiff included allegations setting forth, in addition, an equitable cause of action for specific performance, which is maintainable under the omnibus prayer for relief. By so doing, plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial (Di Menna v. Cooper & Evans Co., 220 N. Y. 391; Vincent v. Cooperman, 283 App. Div. 812). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [39 Misc 2d 233.]

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

In an action pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Law (now Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, art. 15) for determination of a claim [687]*687to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1964, which, upon reargument: (1) denied his motion to transfer the action from the Equity Calendar to the Jury Calendar; and (2) granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. An action to determine title to real property is triable by a jury (CPLR 4101, suibd. 2). However, in his amended complaint the plaintiff included allegations setting forth, in addition, an equitable cause of action for specific performance, which is maintainable under the omnibus prayer for relief. By so doing, plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial (Di Menna v. Cooper & Evans Co., 220 N. Y. 391; Vincent v. Cooperman, 283 App. Div. 812). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [39 Misc 2d 233.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 686, 250 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noto-v-headley-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack