Opinion
January 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
Review of plaintiff's complaint reveals that the over-all nature and character of the case is legal and not equitable and that her request for reinstatement in her prayer for relief was simply incidental to the money damages sought ( see, Lipson v. Dime Sav. Bank, 203 A.D.2d 161, 163; Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft v. Spinale, 177 A.D.2d 315, 316; compare, Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 234 A.D.2d 233). Since plaintiff pleaded only a single cause of action for damages for her unlawful termination and money damages alone afford a full and complete remedy, the action sounds in law, not equity, and may be tried by a jury ( see, Hebranko v. Bioline Labs., 149 A.D.2d 567). Therefore, in the present circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial under both the original and amended complaints.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.