Frost v. Tausik Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frost v. Tausik Bros.

290 A.D.2d 234, 735 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 112

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 234 (Frost v. Tausik Bros.) 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

Frost v. Tausik Bros., 290 A.D.2d 234, 735 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 24, 2000, which, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 5, 2000, confirming in part and rejecting in part a special referee’s report issued after a hearing, dismissed plaintiff tenant’s complaint to recover past rent overcharges, granted defendants landlord and managing agent recovery on their counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $27,541.66, with costs and disbursements but without prejudgment interest, and dismissed defendants’ counterclaim for attorneys’ fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants prejudgment interest, the action remanded for calculation of such interest and entry of an amended judgment in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeals and cross appeals from the May 5, 2000 order, and from the order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2000, which, on the parties’ motion and cross motion for reargument, adhered to the May 5, 2000 decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The judgment granting defendants recovery of unpaid rent was properly awarded from the date of the initial lease beginning on November 1, 1981 (see, Kips Bay Towers Assocs. v Yuceoglu, 134 AD2d 164, 165, lv denied 71 NY2d 806, citing Matter of Lewin v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 88 AD2d 516, affd 57 NY2d 760). We note in this regard that defendants were not to blame for the extraordinary delay in resolution of the administrative proceedings.

We modify to award defendants prejudgment interest on their recovery pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a), entitlement to which is not dependent on “prevailing party” status (see, Solow v Wellner, 86 NY2d 582, 589-590). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them [235]*235unavailing. Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 24, 2000, which, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 5, 2000, confirming in part and rejecting in part a special referee’s report issued after a hearing, dismissed plaintiff tenant’s complaint to recover past rent overcharges, granted defendants landlord and managing agent recovery on their counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $27,541.66, with costs and disbursements but without prejudgment interest, and dismissed defendants’ counterclaim for attorneys’ fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants prejudgment interest, the action remanded for calculation of such interest and entry of an amended judgment in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeals and cross appeals from the May 5, 2000 order, and from the order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2000, which, on the parties’ motion and cross motion for reargument, adhered to the May 5, 2000 decision, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The judgment granting defendants recovery of unpaid rent was properly awarded from the date of the initial lease beginning on November 1, 1981 (see, Kips Bay Towers Assocs. v Yuceoglu, 134 AD2d 164, 165, lv denied 71 NY2d 806, citing Matter of Lewin v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 88 AD2d 516, affd 57 NY2d 760). We note in this regard that defendants were not to blame for the extraordinary delay in resolution of the administrative proceedings.

We modify to award defendants prejudgment interest on their recovery pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a), entitlement to which is not dependent on “prevailing party” status (see, Solow v Wellner, 86 NY2d 582, 589-590). We have considered the parties’ other arguments for affirmative relief and find them [235]*235unavailing. Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 234, 735 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-tausik-bros-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack