Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
R. Raymond KURZNER, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SUTTON OWNERS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered March 26, 1997, which, in an action by plaintiffs for an injunction compelling defendant to make repairs to plaintiffs' apartment, property damage, and breach of the warranty of habitability, denied defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' jury demand and to dismiss claims for trespass and property damage, unanimously modified, on the law, and the motion granted to the extent that the jury demand is stricken and the cause of action for trespass is dismissed, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs waived the right to a jury trial by joining equitable and legal claims arising out of the same wrong or transaction (Roberts v. 156 East 79th Street Corp., 205 A.D.2d 315, 613 N.Y.S.2d 4; Daley v. The Related Companies, 213 A.D.2d 205, 623 N.Y.S.2d 248; Paralegal Institute v. Big Sol Mfg. Co., 190 A.D.2d 595, 593 N.Y.S.2d 797). The equitable relief sought is not merely incidental to plaintiffs' legal claims. Nor will money damages alone afford plaintiffs a complete remedy (Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft v. Spinale, 177 A.D.2d 315, 576 N.Y.S.2d 24).
Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate a viable cause of action for trespass, based on excessive heat, in the circumstances at bar. Trespass involves an interference with a person's right to possession of real property either by an unlawful act or a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner (New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1361 (2nd Cir.1989), cert. denied 495 U.S. 947, 110 S.Ct. 2206, 109 L.Ed.2d 532; see also, Ivancic v. Olmstead, 66 N.Y.2d 349, 497 N.Y.S.2d 326, 488 N.E.2d 72, cert. denied 476 U.S. 1117, 106 S.Ct. 1975, 90 L.Ed.2d 658). There has been no showing in this case of either an unlawful act or a lawful act performed in an unauthorized manner. To the contrary, defendant is authorized and obligated under the lease to provide heat to plaintiffs' apartment.
Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 11, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)