Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

199 Misc. 619

Heyman v. Felice

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1951

New York Supreme Court · decided 1951-03-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1957

1 state decisions

Relies on Blake v. . Corbett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-03-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Daly, J.

¶1Plaintiff moves to vacate a jury demand and for a preference; defendant cross-moves to- transfer the case from the equity calendar to the trial calendar.

¶2This action is to foreclose a chattel mortgage (Blake v. Corbett, 120 N. Y. 327; 9 Carmody on Few York Practice, §§ 580, 595), not, as defendant contends, to recover a chattel (see Civ. Prac. Act, art. 66). Such being the case the defendant is not entitled to a trial of the issues of fact by jury under section 425 of the Civil Practice Act. In this type of action trial by jury is discretionary (Civ. Prac. Act, § 430), and a failure to apply for an order framing issues within twenty days after joinder of issue constitutes a waiver of the right to apply (Bules Civ. Prac., rule 157). Here, no application was made at all (and indeed none is now made); defendant simply filed a jury demand some three months after issue had been joined, believing herself to be entitled to a jury trial as of right. Since she is not so entitled, and since no application to frame issues was made within the time required, plaintiff’s motion to vacate the jury demand is granted and defendant’s cross motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a preference is also denied.

¶3Submit order on notice.

/199/misc/619 · .json · Public domain