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
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT DUPLICATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed
Pointing Finger and Saying “I’m Going to Shoot You” Did Not Support Harassment and Menacing Charges
Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Should Be Dismissed When It Is the Same as the Breach of Contract Claim
ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW (LABOR LAW 740) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S AGE-DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPLORABLE MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING ACCESSING DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS, DELETING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND LYING UNDER OATH, IN DELAWARE COURT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK (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...