Opinion
June 21, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).
While the parties differ as to the exact nature of this action, its essence appears to be that the plaintiff, a woman in her eighties, and the defendant, a relative, entered into a partnership agreement to purchase a building, that plaintiff provided money to purchase and manage the building and that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff not to appear at the closing, kept her name off the deed, and when the building was sold, failed to provide her with her share of the proceeds. Thus an accounting is sought. This being so, the action is equitable in nature and the jury demand should have been stricken even if legal claims for money damages were also asserted. (Marcus v Fabrikant, 81 A.D.2d 527 [1st Dept 1981]; Trepuk v. Frank, 104 A.D.2d 780 [1st Dept 1984]; Kaplan v. Long Is. Univ., 116 A.D.2d 508 [1st Dept 1986].)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.