Dirks v. Hillcone Steamship Co.

City of New York Municipal Court

Dirks v. Hillcone Steamship Co.

21 Misc. 2d 933, 201 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3669

DecidedFebruary 4, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 933 (Dirks v. Hillcone Steamship Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dirks v. Hillcone Steamship Co., 21 Misc. 2d 933, 201 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3669 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Samuel C. Coleman, J.

The plaintiff has had a verdict for unpaid maintenance and cure; and the question is whether, as plaintiff contends, he is entitled to interest on the weekly payments from the dates that they should have been made during the period of disability. I think he is. Whether the right to interest is inherent in the basic right to maintenance and cure and so governed by Federal law or whether the local rule prevails, in either instance interest should run from the dates the plaintiff should have received the payments (Peres v. Suwanee S. S. Co., 239 F. 2d 180; Medina v. Erickson, 226 F. 2d 475; cf. Civ. Prac. Act, § 480; Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262; Brown v. Godefroy Mfg. Co., 278 App. Div. 242). Let interest be added from October 30, 1957, to May 19, 1958, computed on the basis of $56 a week — the basis upon which payments had been made for the initial period of disability.

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

Samuel C. Coleman, J.

The plaintiff has had a verdict for unpaid maintenance and cure; and the question is whether, as plaintiff contends, he is entitled to interest on the weekly payments from the dates that they should have been made during the period of disability. I think he is. Whether the right to interest is inherent in the basic right to maintenance and cure and so governed by Federal law or whether the local rule prevails, in either instance interest should run from the dates the plaintiff should have received the payments (Peres v. Suwanee S. S. Co., 239 F. 2d 180; Medina v. Erickson, 226 F. 2d 475; cf. Civ. Prac. Act, § 480; Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262; Brown v. Godefroy Mfg. Co., 278 App. Div. 242). Let interest be added from October 30, 1957, to May 19, 1958, computed on the basis of $56 a week — the basis upon which payments had been made for the initial period of disability.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 933, 201 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dirks-v-hillcone-steamship-co-nynyccityct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack