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.
David R. CAPLAN, appellant, v. Lawrence E. TOFEL, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), entered December 29, 2004, which, after a trial to determine the damages on the counterclaim of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, P.C., and upon, inter alia, an order of the same court dated November 12, 2004, which, among other things, denied that branch of his application which was for a jury trial on the issue of damages on that counterclaim, is in favor of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, P.C., and against him in the principal sum of $34,122.25.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff's application which was for a jury trial on the issue of damages on the counterclaim of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, P.C., is granted, the order dated November 12, 2004, is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a jury trial on the issue of damages on that counterclaim.
The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiff's application which was for a jury trial on the issue of damages on the counterclaim of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, P.C. “When, on a motion for summary judgment, only issues of fact remain which relate to the extent and amount of damages, ‘the court may, when appropriate for the expeditious disposition of the controversy, order an immediate trial of such issues of fact raised by the motion, before a referee, before the court, or before the court and a jury, whichever may be proper’ ” (Trocom Constr. Corp. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 7 A.D.3d 434, 438, 777 N.Y.S.2d 454, quoting CPLR 3212 [c] ). However, this statutory provision “ ‘does not vest discretion in the court to require the trial of such issues of fact before any type of fact finder other than would be required were there no motion for summary judgment’ ” (Trocom Constr. Corp. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., supra, quoting Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker v. Mechner, 53 A.D.2d 537, 537, 384 N.Y.S.2d 787; cf. Livingston v. Blumenthal, 248 App.Div. 138, 139-140, 289 N.Y.S. 5). Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of damages if that right was not waived (cf. Cogen v. Robin Klinger Children's Entertainment, 17 A.D.3d 619, 620-621, 793 N.Y.S.2d 508).
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff did not waive that right. Pursuant to CPLR 2218, the Supreme Court was required to give the plaintiff an “opportunity to demand a jury trial” on the issue of damages (see Baseball Off. of the Commr. v. Marsh & McLennan, 295 A.D.2d 73, 80, 742 N.Y.S.2d 40; Lipetz v. Palmer, 216 A.D.2d 367, 368, 628 N.Y.S.2d 180). Where, as here, the court did not indicate in its order granting partial summary judgment on liability the time within which a demand for a jury trial must be made, and no note of issue was filed, the plaintiff had until the commencement of the trial to demand a jury (see CPLR 2218; Sosnowski v. Kolovas, 127 A.D.2d 756, 757-758, 512 N.Y.S.2d 148; cf. CPLR 4102[a]; Cogen v. Robin Klinger Children's Entertainment, supra; Barrella v. Richmond Mem. Hosp., 88 A.D.2d 379, 381, 453 N.Y.S.2d 444). The plaintiff made his demand for a jury trial before the commencement of the trial, and therefore such right was not waived. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a jury trial on the issue of damages.
However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's application which was to depose the defendants (see Blagrove v. Cox, 294 A.D.2d 526, 742 N.Y.S.2d 865).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
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: October 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)