Protano v. 16 North Chatsworth Avenue Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Protano v. 16 North Chatsworth Avenue Corp.

249 A.D.2d 288, 670 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3658

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 6, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (Ingrassia, J.), dated March 27, 1997, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike his jury demand.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint (see, Nassau County v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 182 AD2d 678).

The Supreme Court properly struck the defendant’s jury demand (see, JIHL Assocs. v Frank, 107 AD2d 662; Lindenwood Realty Co. v Feldman, 72 Misc 2d 68, 69 [Gulotta, J., dissenting], revd 40 AD2d 855, on dissenting opn at App Term). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (Ingrassia, J.), dated March 27, 1997, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike his jury demand.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint (see, Nassau County v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn, 182 AD2d 678).

The Supreme Court properly struck the defendant’s jury demand (see, JIHL Assocs. v Frank, 107 AD2d 662; Lindenwood Realty Co. v Feldman, 72 Misc 2d 68, 69 [Gulotta, J., dissenting], revd 40 AD2d 855, on dissenting opn at App Term). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Protano v. 16 North Chatsworth Avenue Corp., 249 A.D.2d 288, 670 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

249 A.D.2d 288 (Protano v. 16 North Chatsworth Avenue Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related