Legal Opinion
Noto v. Headley
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 24, 1961PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtWalter R. Hart, J.
Motion by plaintiff for a jury trial on the causes of action in the complaint and counterclaim.
Plaintiff sues for specific performance of an alleged oral contract for the sale of real property. The answer includes a counterclaim which has been construed as stating a cause of action in ejectment (Noto v. Headley, N. Y. L. J., Aug. 5, 1960, p. 3, col. 7).
Specific performance is an equitable remedy (Rindge v. Baker, 57 N. Y. 209 ; Karp v. Twenty-Three Thirty Ryer Corp., 185 Misc. 440, affd. 270 App. Div. 758), and there is no right to a trial by jury in such an action (see Jamaica Sav. Bank v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Di Menna v. . Cooper Evans Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Jamaica Savings Bank v. M. S. Investing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Rindge v. . BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Karp v. Twenty Three Thirty Ryer Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1945
- Karp v. Twenty-Three Thirty Ryer Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Forrest v. FuchsNew York Supreme Court · 1984