Security Pacific National Bank v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Security Pacific National Bank v. Evans

2017 NY Slip Op 1792, 148 A.D.3d 465, 49 N.Y.S.3d 122

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2017

Docket3360 22899/92

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1792 (Security Pacific National Bank v. Evans) 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

Security Pacific National Bank v. Evans, 2017 NY Slip Op 1792, 148 A.D.3d 465, 49 N.Y.S.3d 122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

*466 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered April 14, 2015, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Trade Evans’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant has no right to a jury trial on the triable issues identified by this Court on a prior appeal (62 AD3d 512, 514 [1st Dept 2009]). Since both parties sought equitable relief — that is, specific performance of their settlement agreement or injunctive relief — defendant is not entitled to a jury trial (see Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 59 AD3d 481, 482 [2d Dept 2009]; Trepuk v Frank, 104 AD2d 780, 781 [1st Dept 1984]; CPLR 4101, 4102 [c]). Even if defendant now asserts a claim for money damages, and even if she were to withdraw her equitable claims, that would not revive or create a right to a trial by jury that was waived by asserting equitable claims with respect to the same transaction (see Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847 [1st Dept 1990]; Trepuk, 104 AD2d 780; cf. CPLR 4102 [c]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

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

*466 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered April 14, 2015, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Trade Evans’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant has no right to a jury trial on the triable issues identified by this Court on a prior appeal (62 AD3d 512, 514 [1st Dept 2009]). Since both parties sought equitable relief — that is, specific performance of their settlement agreement or injunctive relief — defendant is not entitled to a jury trial (see Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 59 AD3d 481, 482 [2d Dept 2009]; Trepuk v Frank, 104 AD2d 780, 781 [1st Dept 1984]; CPLR 4101, 4102 [c]). Even if defendant now asserts a claim for money damages, and even if she were to withdraw her equitable claims, that would not revive or create a right to a trial by jury that was waived by asserting equitable claims with respect to the same transaction (see Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 164 AD2d 845, 846-847 [1st Dept 1990]; Trepuk, 104 AD2d 780; cf. CPLR 4102 [c]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1792, 148 A.D.3d 465, 49 N.Y.S.3d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-pacific-national-bank-v-evans-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack