719 (1949); Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 411 N.J.Super. 292, 310-11, 986 A.2d 8 (App.Div. 2010). The remedy sought “remains the most persuasive factor.” Weinisch, supra, 123 N.J. at 344, 587 A.2d 615. That said, only the Legislature can confer litigants with a right to a trial by jury if the action did not exist at common law. See State v. Sailor, 355 N.J.Super. 315, 322, 810 A.2d 564 (App. Div.2001) (“When the Legislature wants to provide for the right to a jury trial, it has done so by express provision”). Thus, in Sailor, it was observed that “since 1951, the right to a jury trial for newly created statutory causes of action has been denied unless the statute so provides.” Id. at 320, 810 A.2d 564 (citing Montclair v. Stanoyevich, 6 N.J. 479, 494, 79 A.2d 288 (1951) (<HOLDING>)). In our comprehensive discussion of the right
holding that convictions before magistrates for small criminal offenses were unknown at common law and therefore defendant had no right to jury trial holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that when a defendant stipulates to prior convictions in prosecutions for aggravated offenses under ndcc  390801 submission of prior convictions to a jury constitutes reversible error holding that jury trial not required before imposition of penalty for selling intoxicating liquors contrary to city ordinance reasoning that prior to 1776 the legality of convictions before magistrates for petty offenses and for violations of police regulations without trial by jury was unquestioned holding that a defendant has right to be represented by counsel in all criminal trials for serious offenses