From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Eason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 2010
78 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2010-02666.

November 16, 2010.

In an action to recover damages based on a theory of promissory estoppel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered March 19, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendants John H. Eason and J.W.L.J. Realty Corporation to strike his jury demand.

Glenn J. Wurzel, Hempstead, N.Y., for appellant.

Angelyn D. Johnson, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since this action is primarily equitable in nature, and the damages demanded by the plaintiff are merely incidental to his claim for equitable relief, the plaintiff has no right to a jury trial ( see CPLR 4101; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 56 AD3d 428; Clifford R. Gray, Inc. v LeChase Constr. Serus., 51 AD3d 1169; Agrawal v Razgaitis, 209 AD2d 566; Magill v Dutchess Bank Trust Co., 150 AD2d 531, 531-532; Merex A.G. v Fairchild Weston Sys., Inc., 29 F3d 821, 823-826, cert denied 513 US 1084).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants John H. Eason and J.W.L.J. Realty Corporation to strike the plaintiffs jury demand.


Summaries of

Williams v. Eason

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 2010
78 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Williams v. Eason

Case Details

Full title:WANDALYN WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN H. EASON et al., Respondents, et…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8563
910 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

Singh v. City of New York

" ( See, Schlick v. Am. Bus. Press, Inc., 246 AD2d 450, 450 [1 Dept 1998].) Indeed, this court finds that…

Lomax v. Gholson

The Plaintiffs argue that since they seek equitable relief, the defendants are not entitled to a jury trial.…