Shaiman v. Flint

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaiman v. Flint

161 A.D.2d 573, 555 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327

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

DecidedMay 7, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 573 (Shaiman v. Flint) 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

Shaiman v. Flint, 161 A.D.2d 573, 555 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for partition and an accounting, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 20, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ demand for a jury trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While it can be argued that the defendants in this partition action did put title in issue in their counterclaim (see, RPAPL 907), "[t]he character of a defense and counterclaim is controlled by the substance of the facts alleged, and not solely by its prayer for relief (Wainwright & Page v Burr & McAuley, 272 NY 130; Auerbach v Chase Nat. Bank of City of N.Y., 251 App Div 543)” (Seneca v Novaro, 80 AD2d 909, 910). A review of the substance of the facts alleged by the defendants in their answer and counterclaim, establishes that what they are actually seeking is equitable relief. Accordingly, the court did not err in striking their demand for a jury trial.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for partition and an accounting, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 20, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ demand for a jury trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While it can be argued that the defendants in this partition action did put title in issue in their counterclaim (see, RPAPL 907), "[t]he character of a defense and counterclaim is controlled by the substance of the facts alleged, and not solely by its prayer for relief (Wainwright & Page v Burr & McAuley, 272 NY 130; Auerbach v Chase Nat. Bank of City of N.Y., 251 App Div 543)” (Seneca v Novaro, 80 AD2d 909, 910). A review of the substance of the facts alleged by the defendants in their answer and counterclaim, establishes that what they are actually seeking is equitable relief. Accordingly, the court did not err in striking their demand for a jury trial.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 573, 555 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaiman-v-flint-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack