Hadier v. Remington Place Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hadier v. Remington Place Associates, LLC

302 A.D.2d 428, 754 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 428 (Hadier v. Remington Place Associates, LLC) 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

Hadier v. Remington Place Associates, LLC, 302 A.D.2d 428, 754 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated February 26, 2002, as directed the plaintiff to refile the judgment entered upon the settlement of the action so as to include costs and interest pursuant to CPLR 5003-a.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties settled their lawsuit in July 2001. It is undisputed that the defendants did not pay the settlement amount to the plaintiff within the time period prescribed by CPLR 5003-a. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to enter judgment pursuant to that statute so as to reflect costs and the appropriate amount of interest (see O’Meara v A & P, Inc., 169 Misc 2d 697). The plaintiffs acceptance of a payment from the defendants, which did not include costs or interest, did not preclude the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5003-a (cf. Mann v All Waste Sys., 293 AD2d 656, lv denied 98 NY2d 610; Pothos v Arverne Houses, 269 AD2d 377).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated February 26, 2002, as directed the plaintiff to refile the judgment entered upon the settlement of the action so as to include costs and interest pursuant to CPLR 5003-a.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties settled their lawsuit in July 2001. It is undisputed that the defendants did not pay the settlement amount to the plaintiff within the time period prescribed by CPLR 5003-a. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to enter judgment pursuant to that statute so as to reflect costs and the appropriate amount of interest (see O’Meara v A & P, Inc., 169 Misc 2d 697). The plaintiffs acceptance of a payment from the defendants, which did not include costs or interest, did not preclude the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5003-a (cf. Mann v All Waste Sys., 293 AD2d 656, lv denied 98 NY2d 610; Pothos v Arverne Houses, 269 AD2d 377).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 428, 754 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadier-v-remington-place-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack