Banque Nationale De Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates

248 A.D.2d 154, 669 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 154 (Banque Nationale De Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates) 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
Banque Nationale De Paris v. 1567 Broadway Ownership Associates, 248 A.D.2d 154, 669 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered September 2, 1997, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant-appellant guarantor’s brief, awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest at the contractual default rate of 24% a year, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to limit the amount of postjudgment interest to the statutory rate of 9% a year, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Since the loan documents do not constitute a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal expression that defendant agreed to pay the default rate until the judgment was satisfied, and the judgment of foreclosure provided only that the default rate was to be applied from default and going forward from the date of computation of the amount owed without specifying that such rate was to survive entry of the judgment, no reason exists to depart from the rule that the statutory rate applies once a judgment is entered (see, Marine Mgt. v Seco Mgt., 176 AD2d 252, affd 80 NY2d 886). We disagree with the IAS Court that defendant’s failure to appeal from the earlier judgment of foreclosure precludes it from challenging the interest rate. Defendant is not attempting to collaterally attack the judgment of foreclosure, but rather is challenging its interpretation by the Referee as providing for interest at the default rate up until the date of the sale, an interpretation first set forth in the Referee’s report of sale. Thus, defendant had no reason to appeal the judgment of foreclosure until its terms were erroneously applied by the Referee in his report of sale and plaintiff moved to confirm that report.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

TD Bank, N.A. v. Miller
S.D. New York, 2023
Sovereign Bank v. Remi Capital Inc
49 F.4th 360 (Third Circuit, 2022)
Deerkoski v. East 49th Street Development II, LLC
120 A.D.3d 1387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
IRB-Brazil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Investments, S.A.
83 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Retirement Accounts, Inc. v. Pacst Realty, LLC
49 A.D.3d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Westinghouse Credit Corporation v. D'Urso
371 F.3d 96 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D'Urso
371 F.3d 96 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Carroll v. United States
198 F. Supp. 2d 328 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Eumi Co. v. 105 East Second Street Associates
251 A.D.2d 164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 154, 669 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banque-nationale-de-paris-v-1567-broadway-ownership-associates-nyappdiv-1998.