From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robertson v. United Plastering, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1962
15 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

January 22, 1962


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party-plaintiff, United Plastering, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 18, 1961, which denied its motion to compel plaintiff to pay the prescribed jury fee and to transfer the action to the General Jury Calendar, among the May, 1960 trial issues; or, in the alternative, to permit said defendant to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc. Order modified and motion granted to the extent of permitting said defendant to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc and to place the action on the calendar with similar issues filed for the May 1960 Term Jury Calendar. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The record indicates that plaintiff noticed the action for trial for the May 1960 Term. The note of issue which was served and filed at that time demanded a jury trial. However, plaintiff paid to the Clerk the fee only for a note of issue but not for a jury trial and consequently the action was placed on the Nonjury Calendar. The instant motion was brought on by order to show cause when said defendant discovered that the action had appeared on the Day Calendar for trial in a nonjury part of the court. There is an absence of any act or omission by said defendant which indicates an intention to waive its right to a jury trial. Subdivision 5 of section 426 of the Civil Practice Act gives the court discretionary power to allow a party to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc where the facts show no intention to waive the jury and where the failure to demand the jury is excusable ( Schwartz v. Sunlight Apts., 274 App. Div. 901; Morabito v. Solomon, 278 App. Div. 657). Placing the action now on the jury calendar with the other issues filed for the May 1960 Term, will not prejudice the plaintiff in any greater degree than if the jury demand had been served and filed and the jury fee paid within the time prescribed ( New York Investors v. Laurelton Homes, 230 App. Div. 712). Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Robertson v. United Plastering, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1962
15 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Robertson v. United Plastering, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HAVELOCK ROBERTSON, Respondent, v. UNITED PLASTERING, INC.…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1962

Citations

15 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Citing Cases

Denig v. Seelig

In our opinion, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. The facts indicate not…

Beck v. 200 Wyndham Associates

The delay of some 33 days between the attempted filing of the jury demand and the return date of the motion…