Case Name: WASSERMAN et al. v. TAUBIN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-30
Citations: 114 N.Y.S. 447
Docket Number: 
Parties: WASSERMAN et al. v. TAUBIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 114
Pages: 447–449

Head Matter:
WASSERMAN et al. v. TAUBIN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 30, 1908.)
1. Juey (§ 14 )—Right to Trial by Juey—Action bob Money Only.
Where plaintiff sued to recover for breach Of an agreement to sell land, demanding only a money judgment, and the answer among other things embraced a counterclaim for the specific performance of the contract, plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial of the issues arising upon the complaint and answer, under Code Civ. Proc. § 968, subd. 1 providing that an issue of fact must be tried by a jury, unless a jury is waived, where the complaint demands judgment for a sum of money only; and it was error, when the cause was reached on the Trial Term calendar, to strike it from the calendar and compel plaintiffs to accept defendants’ notice of trial of the issues arising under their equitable counterclaim at the Special Term.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Jury, Dec. Dig. § 14.*]
2. Trial (§ 3*)—Separate Trials in Same Cause—Equitable Counterclaim.
If defendants wished a trial of the issues arising upon théir equitable counterclaim at Special Term, they should have moved for an order directing separate trials in the appropriate forum of the separate issues, and the order thereof.
[Ed. Note.—For . other eases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 6, 7; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]
Appeal from Special Term.
Action by Sam Wasserman and another against Max Taubin and another. From am order striking the cause from the Trial Term calendar, and requiring plaintiffs to accept defendants’ notice of trial for a Special Term, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and ordered denied.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and MILLER, JJ.
Samuel Schlesinger, for appellants.
Louis R. Boudin, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
The action is brought to recover the amount of a deposit and damages for the breach of an agreement to sell and convey real property. The complaint demands judgment for a sum of money only. The answer, among other things, pleads a counterclaim for the specific performancé of said contract, to which the plaintiffs replied.
The plaintiffs properly noticed the cause for the Trial Term, and could not be deprived of the right to a jury trial by an order striking the cause from the calendar. See section 968, Code Civ. Proc. The motion was granted on the authority of Thomas y. Bronx Realty Co., .60 App. Div. 365, 70 N. Y. Supp. 206. That case held that, pursuant to section 974 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant was entitled to a trial of the issues arising upon the counterclaim and reply at the Special Term, not that the plaintiff could be deprived of his right to a trial by jury of the issues arising upon the complaint and answer. Indeed, it was held in that case that the defendant was riot entitled to stay the trial of the latter issues at a Trial Term, pending the trial and determination of the former issues at Special Term, for the reason.that he might, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have the former issues tried at Special Term before the issues for the Trial Term could be reached for trial. Where the defendant has pleaded an equitable counterclaim, if he wishes a trial of the issues arising thereupon at Special Term, the proper practice is to move for an order directing separate trials in the appropriate forum of the separate issues, and the order thereof. Goss v. Goss, 126 App. Div. 748, 111 N. Y. Supp. 115. The court may then determine whether the issues should be tried separately.
The order should be reversed, and motion denied.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs. All concur.