Marandi v McDermott

[*1] Marandi v McDermott 2012 NY Slip Op 51162(U) Decided on June 25, 2012 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 25, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
570275/11.

Kiyan Marandi, Henry Jeanty, Rooms Rental Referral Services and Wilson Realty, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

against

John McDermott, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated March 24, 2011, which denied his motion, inter alia, to strike plaintiff's jury demand and for discovery sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Per Curiam.

Order (Margaret A. Chan, J.), dated March 24, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant's eve-of-trial motion to strike the jury demand was properly denied, since plaintiffs' stated causes of action for slander per se and related substantive claims were legal, not equitable in nature and money damages alone afford a full and complete remedy (see Schlick v American Bus. Press, Inc., 246 AD2d 450 [1998]). "A jury trial is not waived merely by the inclusion of a[n] [unspecified] claim for equitable relief" (Lipson v Dime Sav. Bank, 203 AD2d 161, 163 [1994]).

Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for discovery sanctions, there being no showing that plaintiffs' alleged discovery defaults were willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Castor Petroleum, Ltd. v Petroterminal de Panama, S.A., 90 AD3d 424 [2011]). The record supports the court's determination that defendant ultimately complied with plaintiffs' discovery demands.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: June 25, 2012