Summary
In Adelstein v. City of New York (212 A.D.2d 748, 749), the Court, in affirming an order of this court which struck a jury demand in a nuisance action said, "In this case, where the plaintiffs sought abatement of and damages for a nuisance and an injunction restraining the continuance of the nuisance, they were not entitled as of right to a trial by jury (see, Cogswell v. New York, New Haven Hartford Riv. R. R. Co., 105 N.Y. 319; Expressway Realties v. Sidjack Realty Corp., 35 Misc.2d 639, affd 17 A.D.2d 926)".
Summary of this case from City of New York v. 114-25 Farmers BoulevardOpinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In this case, where the plaintiffs sought abatement of and damages for a nuisance and an injunction restraining the continuance of the nuisance, they were not entitled as of right to a trial by jury (see, Cogswell v. New York, New Haven Hartford Riv. R.R. Co., 105 N.Y. 319; Expressway Realties v Sidjack Realty Corp., 35 Misc.2d 639, affd 17 A.D.2d 926). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.