LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

297 A.D.2d 710, 747 N.Y.2d 394, 747 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8699

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 710 (LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma) 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

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma, 297 A.D.2d 710, 747 N.Y.2d 394, 747 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The issue raised on this appeal is whether the amount of interest due the plaintiff could be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay of the plaintiffs predecessor in prosecuting the action. This very issue was considered and rejected by this Court as a remaining contention when the matter was last before us (see LDV Enters. v Puma, 285 AD2d 628). Thus, that ruling became the law of the case and the amount of interest due cannot be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay in prosecution (see Prato v Vigliotta, 211 AD2d 214; New York TRW Tit. Ins. v Wade’s Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, 255 AD2d 823). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

The issue raised on this appeal is whether the amount of interest due the plaintiff could be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay of the plaintiffs predecessor in prosecuting the action. This very issue was considered and rejected by this Court as a remaining contention when the matter was last before us (see LDV Enters. v Puma, 285 AD2d 628). Thus, that ruling became the law of the case and the amount of interest due cannot be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay in prosecution (see Prato v Vigliotta, 211 AD2d 214; New York TRW Tit. Ins. v Wade’s Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, 255 AD2d 823). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 710, 747 N.Y.2d 394, 747 N.Y.S.2d 394, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ldv-enterprises-inc-v-puma-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack