Ithilien Realty Corp. v. 176 Ludlow, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ithilien Realty Corp. v. 176 Ludlow, LLC

139 A.D.3d 582, 33 N.Y.S.3d 182

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

DecidedMay 24, 2016

Docket110046/11 -1240N 1239 1238

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 582 (Ithilien Realty Corp. v. 176 Ludlow, 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

Ithilien Realty Corp. v. 176 Ludlow, LLC, 139 A.D.3d 582, 33 N.Y.S.3d 182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 28, 2015, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $1,164,161.03, including statutory interest from July 25, 2011 through August 28, 2015 in the amount of $313,126.03, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of prejudgment interest and remand the matter to Supreme Court for entry of an amended judgment, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 8, 2015, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with discovery demands and directed an assessment of damages against defendant, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

*583 The court properly granted the motion to strike defendant’s answer inasmuch as the record demonstrates that defendant engaged in willful and contumacious conduct by its failure to comply with the discovery orders and directives of the court and special referee (see CPLR 3126; see e.g. Suffolk P.E.T. Mgt., LLC v Anand, 105 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2013]).

There exists no basis to disturb the determinations made by the special referee, including its discovery determinations and its assessment of damages in the amount of the down payment under the parties’ contract, and the court’s orders confirming the special referee’s findings and awarding summary judgment to plaintiff were proper.

However, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding statutory prejudgment interest to plaintiff. The contract’s terms, requiring that the down payment be placed in an interest-bearing account, so that the party entitled to the down payment would receive compensation for the deprivation of its use of the money in the form of accrued interest, were sufficiently clear to establish that interest paid at the statutory rate was not contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was formed and that the amount escrowed, including interest earned, should be the exclusive remedy to the wronged party (see J. D'Addario & Co., Inc. v Embassy Indus., Inc., 20 NY3d 113, 117 [2012]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered August 28, 2015, awarding plaintiff the total sum of $1,164,161.03, including statutory interest from July 25, 2011 through August 28, 2015 in the amount of $313,126.03, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of prejudgment interest and remand the matter to Supreme Court for entry of an amended judgment, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered January 8, 2015, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with discovery demands and directed an assessment of damages against defendant, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

*583 The court properly granted the motion to strike defendant’s answer inasmuch as the record demonstrates that defendant engaged in willful and contumacious conduct by its failure to comply with the discovery orders and directives of the court and special referee (see CPLR 3126; see e.g. Suffolk P.E.T. Mgt., LLC v Anand, 105 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2013]).

There exists no basis to disturb the determinations made by the special referee, including its discovery determinations and its assessment of damages in the amount of the down payment under the parties’ contract, and the court’s orders confirming the special referee’s findings and awarding summary judgment to plaintiff were proper.

However, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding statutory prejudgment interest to plaintiff. The contract’s terms, requiring that the down payment be placed in an interest-bearing account, so that the party entitled to the down payment would receive compensation for the deprivation of its use of the money in the form of accrued interest, were sufficiently clear to establish that interest paid at the statutory rate was not contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was formed and that the amount escrowed, including interest earned, should be the exclusive remedy to the wronged party (see J. D'Addario & Co., Inc. v Embassy Indus., Inc., 20 NY3d 113, 117 [2012]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 582, 33 N.Y.S.3d 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ithilien-realty-corp-v-176-ludlow-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack