From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caruso v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-04071.

March 24, 2009.

In an action to recover unpaid legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 10, 2008, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4102 (e) for leave to serve and file a late demand for a jury trial.

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Littleton, Joyce, Ughetta, Park Kelly, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Wendy B. Shepps of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Eng, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4102 (e) for leave to serve and file a late demand for a jury trial. A motion for such relief must be based upon a factual showing that the earlier waiver of that right was the result of either inadvertence or other excusable conduct indicating a lack of intention to waive such a right ( see Fischer v RWSP Realty, LLC, 53 AD3d 595, 597; Sumba v Sampaio, 44 AD3d 648; Hyatte v G.B.W. Glenwood Dental Adm'rs, Inc., 8 AD3d 233). The defendant failed to make such a factual showing ( see Matter of Bosco, 141 AD2d 639).


Summaries of

Caruso v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2009
60 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Caruso v. Hirsch

Case Details

Full title:CARUSO, CARUSO BRANDA, P.C., Respondent, v. NACHAMA HIRSCH, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 24, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2314
874 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

Traicoff v. City of N.Y.

Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion on the basis that "a jury trial would add at least a year to the…

Shock v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

See, Schwartz v. Sunlight Apartments, Inc., 274 AD 901 [2d Dept. 1948]; see also, A.S.L. Enterprises, Inc. v.…