Order of Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered December 20, 1989, which, amending its order entеred November 24, 1989, inter alia, directed the filing of a note of issue, and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel discovery of plaintiff’s expert and basis for alleged general damages and to strike plaintiff’s jury demand, unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to the extent оf granting the cross motion to strike plaintiff’s jury demand and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. (Masiello) commenced this
Plaintiff immediately sought, but was denied, a temрorary restraining order reinstating it as defendant’s sales representative. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was similarly denied on September 4, 1987, the motion court finding that "the injury to plaintiff may readily be recompensed in monetary damages”.
Thereafter, the pаrties stipulated that 10 days prior to filing of a note of issue, plaintiff would provide defendаnt with requested disclosure relating to plaintiff’s expert trial testimony and damage calculations. Accordingly, on September 13, 1989, after serving interrogatory answers and supplemental answers, plaintiff moved for an order authorizing the filing of a note of issue. Zimmer cross-moved for additional expert and damage disclosure and to strike the jury demand made in plaintiff’s proposed note of issue.
By order entered November 24, 1989 the IAS court denied Zimmеr’s cross motion. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial since its equitable cause of action had been dismissed and only monetary issues remained. By order entered December 20, 1989 the court amended its previous order by permitting plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before December 31, 1989.
Zimmer appeals from the denial of its cross motion.
Plaintiff has waived its right to a jury trial. When, as here, the complaint either joins legal and equitable causes of action arising out of the same alleged wrong or seeks both legal and equitable relief, there is no right to a jury trial. (O’Rorke v Carpenter,
Moreover, none of plaintiffs causes of action had been dismissed. Rather plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction were deniеd, the prior motion court having found that there existed an adequate damage remedy.
Indeed, plaintiffs first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty sounds in equity. Under this cause, plaintiff alleges that defendant threatened plaintiff with immediate destruction of its business and with irreparable harm and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. (Matter of Rappaport,
As the factual allegations underlying the first, sixth and seventh causes and the causes for equitable relief arise from the same alleged wrong as the legal сlaims in causes of action two through five—the allegedly wrongful termination of plaintiffs sales agency—plaintiff has no right to a jury trial.
The IAS court properly denied further discovery. Plаintiffs response to defendant’s interrogatories set forth the identity of its experts, the subject matter about which each expert would testify, the formulas utilized, the qualifications of еach expert witness, a summary of the grounds for the expert’s opinion, the value of its businеss and the method for calculating claimed damages. (CPLR 3101 [d] [1].) In view of the information providеd, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff need not provide defendant with a "breakdown” of its general damage claims for each cause of action. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.