Aimco Chelsea Land, LLC v. Bassey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aimco Chelsea Land, LLC v. Bassey

25 A.D.3d 631, 807 N.Y.S.2d 317

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 631 (Aimco Chelsea Land, LLC v. Bassey) 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

Aimco Chelsea Land, LLC v. Bassey, 25 A.D.3d 631, 807 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of an escrow fund, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 26, 2004, as denied those branches of their motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On a prior appeal, this Court decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to have granted only that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment seeking release of a $250,000 escrow fund, with accrued interest (see Aimco Chelsea Land v Bassey, 6 AD3d 367 [2004]). No other issues were briefed by the parties therein. As to the merits of the plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal, they fail to demonstrate their entitlement to the relief they sought, in the form of prejudgment interest and an award of an attorney’s fee (see CPLR 5001 [a]; Maliner-Colvin v 85-10 34th Ave. Apt. Corp., 284 AD2d 434 [2001]; Oliveri v Carter, 256 AD2d 393, 394 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of an escrow fund, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated August 26, 2004, as denied those branches of their motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On a prior appeal, this Court decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to have granted only that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment seeking release of a $250,000 escrow fund, with accrued interest (see Aimco Chelsea Land v Bassey, 6 AD3d 367 [2004]). No other issues were briefed by the parties therein. As to the merits of the plaintiffs’ contentions on this appeal, they fail to demonstrate their entitlement to the relief they sought, in the form of prejudgment interest and an award of an attorney’s fee (see CPLR 5001 [a]; Maliner-Colvin v 85-10 34th Ave. Apt. Corp., 284 AD2d 434 [2001]; Oliveri v Carter, 256 AD2d 393, 394 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the appellants’ motion which were for entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5016 to include an award of an attorney’s fee and prejudgment interest. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 631, 807 N.Y.S.2d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aimco-chelsea-land-llc-v-bassey-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack