Eighteen Holding Corp. v. Drizin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eighteen Holding Corp. v. Drizin

268 A.D.2d 371, 701 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 371 (Eighteen Holding Corp. v. Drizin) 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

Eighteen Holding Corp. v. Drizin, 268 A.D.2d 371, 701 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 4, 1999, which, upon a prior order of the same court and Justice, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to its causes for money had and received, unjust enrichment and conversion, awarded plaintiff the sum of $264,473.92, plus costs and disbursements and interest at the statutory rate of nine percent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties formed a partnership for the purpose of acquiring certain mortgages and, by the terms of their partnership agreement, each partner was to receive a share of the proceeds from the disposition of the mortgages proportionate to the partner’s interest in the partnership. Defendants, in opposing plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, failed to adduce proof in evidentiary form sufficient to raise an issue of fact with re[372]*372spect to their contention, plainly at odds with the terms of the partnership agreement, that plaintiff, a partner, was entitled only to reimbursement of its contribution to the purchase of the mortgages. Defendants’ submissions amounted to no more than unsubstantiated allegations and, as such, failed to warrant denial of plaintiffs summary judgment motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The award of pre-judgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 at the statutory rate of nine percent was proper. This was an action at law, not one in which an accounting of the partnership was required; the proceeds of a discrete transaction were held in one account and a specified share of the funds was owed plaintiff (see, Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 AD2d 107, 115, quoting Kriegsman v Kraus, Ostreicher & Co., 126 AD2d 489, 490). Moreover, even if plaintiff’s action had been equitable, the IAS Court’s award of prejudgment interest would nonetheless have been proper in light of the circumstance that defendants wrongly withheld plaintiff’s money (see, Aurnou v Greenspan, 161 AD2d 438, 439-440, amended on other grounds 164 AD2d 794). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 4, 1999, which, upon a prior order of the same court and Justice, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to its causes for money had and received, unjust enrichment and conversion, awarded plaintiff the sum of $264,473.92, plus costs and disbursements and interest at the statutory rate of nine percent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The parties formed a partnership for the purpose of acquiring certain mortgages and, by the terms of their partnership agreement, each partner was to receive a share of the proceeds from the disposition of the mortgages proportionate to the partner’s interest in the partnership. Defendants, in opposing plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, failed to adduce proof in evidentiary form sufficient to raise an issue of fact with re[372]*372spect to their contention, plainly at odds with the terms of the partnership agreement, that plaintiff, a partner, was entitled only to reimbursement of its contribution to the purchase of the mortgages. Defendants’ submissions amounted to no more than unsubstantiated allegations and, as such, failed to warrant denial of plaintiffs summary judgment motion (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The award of pre-judgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 at the statutory rate of nine percent was proper. This was an action at law, not one in which an accounting of the partnership was required; the proceeds of a discrete transaction were held in one account and a specified share of the funds was owed plaintiff (see, Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 AD2d 107, 115, quoting Kriegsman v Kraus, Ostreicher & Co., 126 AD2d 489, 490). Moreover, even if plaintiff’s action had been equitable, the IAS Court’s award of prejudgment interest would nonetheless have been proper in light of the circumstance that defendants wrongly withheld plaintiff’s money (see, Aurnou v Greenspan, 161 AD2d 438, 439-440, amended on other grounds 164 AD2d 794). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 371, 701 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eighteen-holding-corp-v-drizin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack