As relevant here,* Plaintiff commenced this action against the New York City Transit Authority and two of its employees [Defendants] to recover damages for discrimination in hiring and discrimination in promotion.
Plaintiff made a demand for a jury trial. Defendants moved to strike the demand, contending that Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial by joining claims for legal and equitable relief.
Supreme Court granted the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's granting Defendant's motion, noting that CPLR §4101(1) provides, in pertinent part, that "issues of fact shall be tried by a jury, unless a jury trial is waived," in any action "in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only."
The Appellate Division's decision, stating that the "deliberate joinder of claims for legal and equitable relief arising out of the same transaction" may constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial but the right to a jury trial must be determined by the facts alleged in the complaint and not by the prayer for relief. Citing Hebranko v Bioline Labs., the Appellate Division explained "[w]here a plaintiff alleges facts upon which monetary damages alone will afford full relief, inclusion of a demand for equitable relief in the complaint's prayer for relief will not constitute a waiver of the right to a jury trial". In other words, "[a] jury trial will not be waived if the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff is "incidental to [his or her] demand for money damages".
In this action Plaintiff sought to recover damages for employment discrimination. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the action is essentially legal, and even though the prayer for relief in the complaint contains demands for equitable relief, only an award of monetary damages would afford Plaintiff a full and complete remedy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's jury demand.
* For factual background of this appeal see Blackman v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. (206 AD3d 602.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.