From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 1996
227 A.D.2d 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In Zimmerman, there was a determination made that neither party could obtain full and complete relief by a judgment for a sum of money.

Summary of this case from Klein v. Loeb Holding Core

Opinion

May 14, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


Aside from its contract claims, the main relief plaintiff seeks is an injunction against defendant's continuing her use of the Soho Booking name and logo. Defendant initially asserted a counterclaim for similar relief as against plaintiff, but withdrew it without prejudice. The IAS Court correctly held that "the primary character of the case" is equitable ( Cadwalader Wickersham Taft v. Spinale, 177 A.D.2d 315, 316), as neither party would obtain full and complete relief by a judgment for a sum of money ( Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 136 A.D.2d 229, 232). Defendant's withdrawal without prejudice of her equitable claim neither changed the character of the action nor revived any right she may have had for trial by jury ( Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v. Zimmer, Inc., 164 A.D.2d 845, 846-847).

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 1996
227 A.D.2d 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In Zimmerman, there was a determination made that neither party could obtain full and complete relief by a judgment for a sum of money.

Summary of this case from Klein v. Loeb Holding Core
Case details for

Downtown Art Co. v. Zimmerman

Case Details

Full title:DOWNTOWN ART CO., Respondent, v. CATHERINE ZIMMERMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 14, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 259

Citing Cases

Willis re Inc. v. Hudson

As the Appellate Division has held, the mootness of the equitable claim during the course of the litigation…

Schottenstein v. Windsor Tov LLC

In Hamburger v Levitin. 140 AD2d 583. 584 (2d Dept 1988) appeal denied 73 NY2d 701 (1988), which involved a…