Roberts v. 156 East 79th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. 156 East 79th Street Corp.

205 A.D.2d 315, 613 N.Y.S.2d 4

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 315 (Roberts v. 156 East 79th Street Corp.) 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

Roberts v. 156 East 79th Street Corp., 205 A.D.2d 315, 613 N.Y.S.2d 4 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 25, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew her request for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[316]*316The right to a jury trial is waived by the joinder of legal and equitable causes of actions arising out of the same alleged wrong (New Jersey Steel Acquisition Corp. v Von Roll, AG., 188 AD2d. 279). Here, there is no doubt that plaintiffs first complaint was for equitable relief. Although plaintiff commenced a second action seeking primarily money damages, the record demonstrates that her legal representative, once satisfied that consolidation of the actions would not result in delay of the trial, did not object. Furthermore, no objection or concern was voiced regarding the possible waiver of a right to a jury trial until plaintiff filed her Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness.

Since the record demonstrates that plaintiff, who does not contest the consolidation itself, still has a viable claim for equitable relief, there is no merit to the argument that only her claim for money damages remains to be resolved (compare, Ossory Trading v Geldermann, Inc., 200 AD2d 423). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 25, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew her request for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[316]*316The right to a jury trial is waived by the joinder of legal and equitable causes of actions arising out of the same alleged wrong (New Jersey Steel Acquisition Corp. v Von Roll, AG., 188 AD2d. 279). Here, there is no doubt that plaintiffs first complaint was for equitable relief. Although plaintiff commenced a second action seeking primarily money damages, the record demonstrates that her legal representative, once satisfied that consolidation of the actions would not result in delay of the trial, did not object. Furthermore, no objection or concern was voiced regarding the possible waiver of a right to a jury trial until plaintiff filed her Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness.

Since the record demonstrates that plaintiff, who does not contest the consolidation itself, still has a viable claim for equitable relief, there is no merit to the argument that only her claim for money damages remains to be resolved (compare, Ossory Trading v Geldermann, Inc., 200 AD2d 423). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 315, 613 N.Y.S.2d 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-156-east-79th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack