You are here: / / IN AN ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-DEBTORS PURSUANT...
,

IN AN ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 52, THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL; THE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, DESPITE THE DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined petitioner’s request for a jury trial in this action seeking to compel non-debtors to make assets accessible for execution should have been stricken. Even though money damages were demanded, the essence of the action is equitable:

Petitioners commenced a “turnover” special proceeding under CPLR article 52 and sought a judgment among other things, “seeking . . ‘turnover’ of [defendant] NYGFI assets to satisfy [p]etitioners’ judgment . . . compelling the non-debtor [r]espondents to disclose, bring within the jurisdiction, and make accessible for execution . . . all cash, income, distributions and funds . . . including all membership interests in limited lability companies . . . and shares in corporations and interests in partnerships . . . and granting the appointment of a CPLR [a]rticle 52 receiver.”

… “[A] [p]laintiff is not entitled to a jury trial . . . [when] he seeks to enforce a judgment against a party other than the judgment debtor, which is an equitable claim” … .

… “[T]he rule is fundamental that where a plaintiff seeks legal and equitable relief in respect of the same wrong, his right to trial by jury is lost” … . Moreover, “[i]nclusion of a demand for money damages in the [pleading] does not, in and of itself, guarantee entitlement to a jury trial. Rather, it must be determined whether the main thrust of the action is for legal damages or for equitable relief” … . Matter of Uni-Rty Corp. v New York Guangdong Fin., 2022 NY Slip Op 01525, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: An action pursuant to CPLR Article 52 to enforce a judgment against non-debtors is equitable in nature. A jury trial is therefore not available. The demand for money damages (legal relief) did not alter the fact that petitioners are primarily seeking equitable relief.

 

You might also like
THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S FALL GETTING OUT OF A POLICE CAR WAS NOT AN UNEXPECTED ACCIDENT OR DUE TO A RISK INHERENT IN THE JOB; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
The Term “Casualty” In Lease Covered Flooding Due to Malfunctioning HVAC System
DEFENDANT STATED VALID COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEUROLOGIST AND DEFENDANT CARDIOLOGIST WERE JOINTLY DIAGNOSING AND TREATING PLAINTIFF FOR HER STROKE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NEUROLOGIST SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THAT A TEST ORDERED BY THE NEUROLOGIST, BUT TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST, WAS DONE WITHIN 48 HOURS (FIRST DEPT),
NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE VERDICT SHEET BEFORE THE VERDICT AND JUROR AFFIDAVITS ALLEGING CONFUSION ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT PROVED HE DID NOT RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS MADE; AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE PROCESS SERVER EXERCISED “DUE DILIGENCE” IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE THE OTHER DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST A SWISS CORPORATION... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT...