Sepinski v. Bergstol
| Decision Date | 11 May 1981 |
| Citation | 438 N.Y.S.2d 870,81 A.D.2d 860 |
| Parties | Loretta SEPINSKI et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Leif BERGSTOL et al., Appellants-Respondents et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Shapiro & Goodfriend, Spring Valley (Mark F. Goodfriend, Spring Valley, of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Arthur Moskoff, New City, for respondents-appellants.
Before MANGANO, J. P., and RABIN, MARGETT and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for money damages and an injunction, defendants Leif Bergstol and North Rockland Associates, Inc. appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered August 14, 1980, as denied their motion to strike plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial and granted that part of plaintiffs' cross motion which sought leave to serve an amended complaint eliminating their demand for equitable relief, and (2) from a further order of the same court, entered October 9, 1980, which, upon plaintiffs' motion, denominated one "for leave to renew and/or reargue", adhered to the original determination. (We deem plaintiffs' motion to be one to resettle the order entered August 14, 1980, and the order to be one denying the motion.) Plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the order entered August 14, 1980 as denied the branch of their cross motion which sought to amend their complaint to increase the ad damnum clause.
Cross appeal dismissed on ground that it was not properly perfected.
Appeal from the order entered October 9, 1980 dismissed. Defendants Bergstol and North Rockland Associates, Inc. were not aggrieved thereby.
Order entered August 14, 1980 modified, by (1) deleting the provision denying the motion of defendants Bergstol and North Rockland Associates to strike plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial and substituting a provision granting such motion, and (2) deleting the provision granting that part of plaintiffs' cross motion which sought leave to discontinue the demand for equitable relief and substituting a provision denying same. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from.
Appellants-respondents are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements.
By joining claims for equitable and legal relief arising out of the same transaction, plaintiffs waived their right to a trial by jury and, accordingly, the motion to strike plaintiffs' jury demand should have been granted ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John W. Cowper Co., Inc. v. Buffalo Hotel Development Venture
...joining equitable and legal claims arising from the same transaction in a single complaint. CPLR § 4102(a)(c). Sepinski v. Bergstol, 81 A.D.2d 860, 438 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2d Dept.1981); Kenford Co. v. Erie County, 38 A.D.2d 781, 328 N.Y.S.2d 69 (4th Dept.1972); A.J. Fritschy Corp. v. Chase Manha......
-
Forrest v. Fuchs
...action in chief upon the ground he has joined legal and equitable claims relating to the same transaction (see e.g., Sepinski v. Bergstol, 81 A.D.2d 860, 438 N.Y.S.2d 870; Gabbay v. Ratchik, 60 A.D.2d 593, 400 N.Y.S.2d 20; Heller v. Hacken, 40 A.D.2d 1012, 338 N.Y.S.2d 943), apparently conc......
-
Trepuk v. Frank
...4102(c); Epstein v. Paganne Ltd., 39 A.D.2d 855, 333 N.Y.S.2d 187; Gabbay v. Ratchik, 60 A.D.2d 593, 400 N.Y.S.2d 20; Sepinski v. Bergstol, 81 A.D.2d 860, 438 N.Y.S.2d 870; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac. p Vinlis Construction Corp. v. Roreck, 23 A.D.2d 895, 260 N.Y.S.2d 245, relied ......
-
Meltzer v. Lincoln Square Apartments Section V
...Trepuk v. Frank, 104 A.D.2d 780, 480 N.Y.S.2d 889; Tanenbaum v. Anchor Savings Bank, 95 A.D.2d 827, 464 N.Y.S.2d 19; Sepinski v. Bergstol, 81 A.D.2d 860, 438 N.Y.S.2d 870; Fritchy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 36 A.D.2d 600, 318 N.Y.S.2d 369. The rule is to the contrary when the claims arise out......