Opinion
October 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
The action cannot be viewed as primarily legal in nature where the main thrust of plaintiff's allegations is that defendants' transfer of franchise rights in a restaurant was a violation of their fiduciary "duties to plaintiff in an alleged joint venture to develop the restaurant ( see, Trepuk v. Frank, 104 A.D.2d 780, 781, citing Pieper v. Renke, 4 N.Y.2d 410). There is no merit to plaintiff's argument that her claims are otherwise jury triable by reason of defendants' interposition of counterclaims for money damages ( cf., Voges Mfg. Co. v. New York Queens Elec. Light Power Co., 261 App. Div. 377), or her voluntary discontinuance of the claims against the transferee ( compare, Ossory Trading v. Geldermann, Inc., 200 A.D.2d 423).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.