From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Centurion

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 7, 1982
113 Misc. 2d 150 (N.Y. App. Term 1982)

Opinion

January 7, 1982

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, SAMUEL GREENSTEIN, J.

Lester Schwab Katz Dwyer ( B. Jennifer Jaffee of counsel), for Centurion Investigations, Inc., appellant.

Langan Levy ( Linda L. Larsen of counsel), for Coney Island Site Five Houses and another, appellants.

F.V. Mina for Hampton Management, Inc., appellant.

McLaughlin, McLaughlin Niemark ( Harold J. McLaughlin of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

Order insofar as appealed from reversed, without costs, and motion denied.

The plaintiff's consent was not necessary in order for the defendants to withdraw their demand for a jury trial (CPLR 4102, subds [a], [c]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, pars 4102.05, 4102.15, 4102.18). We incidentally note that under the facts herein the plaintiff was not entitled to file a jury demand nunc pro tunc pursuant to CPLR 4102 (subd [e]) (see Fils v Diener, 59 A.D.2d 522; see, also, Brigando v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 A.D.2d 865).


I concur with the result based upon the present state of the law. However, I deplore the "gamesmanship" practiced by defendants-appellants Coney Island Site Five Houses, Inc., and Spew Management Corporation. Appellants filed a jury demand, thereby delaying the trial of the action. Thereafter, as the matter was about to be tried and the jury selection process had begun, appellants sought to withdraw their jury demand over plaintiff's objections. Permitting a defendant to withdraw the demand at that point places a plaintiff at a decided disadvantage. Defendant, if satisfied with the prospective panel, will proceed to a trial by jury, whereas if he is not satisfied all he need do is withdraw his demand and obtain a nonjury trial. Plaintiff, however, has no such option. Such tactics should not be countenanced and it is suggested legislation be enacted to remedy the situation.

PINO, P.J., and BUSCHMANN, J., concur; JONES, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.


Summaries of

Wright v. Centurion

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 7, 1982
113 Misc. 2d 150 (N.Y. App. Term 1982)
Case details for

Wright v. Centurion

Case Details

Full title:GERTRUDE WRIGHT, Respondent, v. CENTURION INVESTIGATIONS, INC., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jan 7, 1982

Citations

113 Misc. 2d 150 (N.Y. App. Term 1982)
450 N.Y.S.2d 936

Citing Cases

Housing Dept v. Chance Equities

Respondents have asserted that the motion to strike the jury demands is untimely since it was made after the…