C.T. Holdings, Ltd. v. Schreiber Family Charitable Foundation, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C.T. Holdings, Ltd. v. Schreiber Family Charitable Foundation, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 6914, 154 A.D.3d 433, 61 N.Y.S.3d 532

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2017

Docket4581 152765/14

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6914 (C.T. Holdings, Ltd. v. Schreiber Family Charitable Foundation, Inc.) 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

C.T. Holdings, Ltd. v. Schreiber Family Charitable Foundation, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 6914, 154 A.D.3d 433, 61 N.Y.S.3d 532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 10, 2016, which, upon granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its claim to renew a judgment entered November 5, 1998, adjudged that plaintiff was entitled to recover against defendants the principal sum of the underlying judgment, plus interest from the original date of entry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff judgment creditor timely commenced this action for a renewal judgment more than ten years after the docketing of the original judgment as a lien against appellant’s property (CPLR 5014 [1]). Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to a renewal judgment by demonstrating that defendants have not satisfied any part of the judgment (see Premier Capital, LLC v Best Traders, Inc., 88 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2d Dept 2011]). In opposition, appellant argued that plaintiff was not entitled to a renewal judgment because it had unreasonably delayed in enforcing the original judgment, while interest accumulated on the judgment and tax liens were imposed. On appeal, he argues that the equitable doctrine of laches applies since his circumstances have worsened during the ten years since the judgment was docketed.

The “mere delay” in enforcement of a judgment, without actual prejudice resulting from the delay, does not constitute laches (Premier Capital at 678; see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 816 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]; Matter of Linker, 23 AD3d 186, 189 [1st Dept 2005]). Appellant relies on facts outside the record which, in any event, do not constitute injury or prejudice resulting from plaintiff’s delay. The accumulation of postjudgment interest does not support a claim of laches, since plaintiff is entitled by statute to interest on the unpaid amount of the original judgment, which is valid for twenty years (CPLR 211 [b]; 5004), regardless of whether the judgment is renewed.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 10, 2016, which, upon granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its claim to renew a judgment entered November 5, 1998, adjudged that plaintiff was entitled to recover against defendants the principal sum of the underlying judgment, plus interest from the original date of entry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff judgment creditor timely commenced this action for a renewal judgment more than ten years after the docketing of the original judgment as a lien against appellant’s property (CPLR 5014 [1]). Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to a renewal judgment by demonstrating that defendants have not satisfied any part of the judgment (see Premier Capital, LLC v Best Traders, Inc., 88 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2d Dept 2011]). In opposition, appellant argued that plaintiff was not entitled to a renewal judgment because it had unreasonably delayed in enforcing the original judgment, while interest accumulated on the judgment and tax liens were imposed. On appeal, he argues that the equitable doctrine of laches applies since his circumstances have worsened during the ten years since the judgment was docketed.

The “mere delay” in enforcement of a judgment, without actual prejudice resulting from the delay, does not constitute laches (Premier Capital at 678; see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 816 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]; Matter of Linker, 23 AD3d 186, 189 [1st Dept 2005]). Appellant relies on facts outside the record which, in any event, do not constitute injury or prejudice resulting from plaintiff’s delay. The accumulation of postjudgment interest does not support a claim of laches, since plaintiff is entitled by statute to interest on the unpaid amount of the original judgment, which is valid for twenty years (CPLR 211 [b]; 5004), regardless of whether the judgment is renewed.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6914, 154 A.D.3d 433, 61 N.Y.S.3d 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ct-holdings-ltd-v-schreiber-family-charitable-foundation-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack