Abend v. Argo Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abend v. Argo Corp.

208 A.D.2d 476, 617 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 476 (Abend v. Argo Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abend v. Argo Corp., 208 A.D.2d 476, 617 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered June 29, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order amending, nunc pro tunc, a judgment of the same court entered September 15, 1992, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1 (e), to add interest due under CPLR 5002, increasing the amount from $10,615.91 to $17,901.07, and denied defendant’s cross motion to vacate that judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[477]*477The IAS Court correctly concluded that interest is available for the period from the overcharge administrative determination to the entry of judgment on the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) order. CPLR 5002 provides for interest "from the date the * * * decision was made to the date of entry of final judgment”. Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.1 (e) provides that a judgment on an unpaid DHCR overcharge order "may be entered, filed and enforced by a tenant in the same manner as a judgment of the Supreme Court”. Such "manner” includes prejudgment interest equivalent to that authorized by CPLR 5002 (see, e.g., Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Gissha White Plains Corp., 107 AD2d 750).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered June 29, 1993, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for an order amending, nunc pro tunc, a judgment of the same court entered September 15, 1992, pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2526.1 (e), to add interest due under CPLR 5002, increasing the amount from $10,615.91 to $17,901.07, and denied defendant’s cross motion to vacate that judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[477]*477The IAS Court correctly concluded that interest is available for the period from the overcharge administrative determination to the entry of judgment on the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) order. CPLR 5002 provides for interest "from the date the * * * decision was made to the date of entry of final judgment”. Rent Stabilization Code § 2526.1 (e) provides that a judgment on an unpaid DHCR overcharge order "may be entered, filed and enforced by a tenant in the same manner as a judgment of the Supreme Court”. Such "manner” includes prejudgment interest equivalent to that authorized by CPLR 5002 (see, e.g., Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Gissha White Plains Corp., 107 AD2d 750).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 476, 617 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abend-v-argo-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack