French v. Schiavo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

French v. Schiavo

70 A.D.3d 403, 892 N.Y.S.2d 762

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 403 (French v. Schiavo) 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

French v. Schiavo, 70 A.D.3d 403, 892 N.Y.S.2d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered April 30, 2009, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, and bringing up for review an order, same court (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for a declaration that postjudgment interest pursuant to CFLR 5003 stopped running as of January 18, 2008, when their insurance carrier unconditionally tendered all lump sums due and owing, plus costs and interest to that date, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

On January 18, 2008, defendants made an unconditional tender of both the lump-sum payments and the future periodic [404]*404payments due under the judgment, thereby terminating the accrual of postjudgment interest as of that date (see Meiselman v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD2d 561 [1993]). Plaintiffs failure to provide the carrier with certain reasonable requests for information needed to finalize the annuity contract, which it is undisputed had been purchased at the time of the lump-sum tender on January 18, 2008, left defendants with no alternative but to present the specimen contract for court approval.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and 'find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered April 30, 2009, upon a jury verdict in plaintiffs favor, and bringing up for review an order, same court (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion for a declaration that postjudgment interest pursuant to CFLR 5003 stopped running as of January 18, 2008, when their insurance carrier unconditionally tendered all lump sums due and owing, plus costs and interest to that date, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

On January 18, 2008, defendants made an unconditional tender of both the lump-sum payments and the future periodic [404]*404payments due under the judgment, thereby terminating the accrual of postjudgment interest as of that date (see Meiselman v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD2d 561 [1993]). Plaintiffs failure to provide the carrier with certain reasonable requests for information needed to finalize the annuity contract, which it is undisputed had been purchased at the time of the lump-sum tender on January 18, 2008, left defendants with no alternative but to present the specimen contract for court approval.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and 'find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 403, 892 N.Y.S.2d 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-schiavo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack