McLaughlin v. Brinckerhoff

222 A.D. 458, 226 N.Y.S. 623, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8087
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 222 A.D. 458 (McLaughlin v. Brinckerhoff) 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
McLaughlin v. Brinckerhoff, 222 A.D. 458, 226 N.Y.S. 623, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

McAvoy, J.

This order denied plaintiff’s motion to direct the clerk of a Trial Term to enter in his minutes the interest on a verdict awarded by a jury. The motion was made under section 480 of the Civil Practice Act, which provides, as amended by chapter 623 of the Laws of 1927, that in any action for the enforcement of a contract, based upon a breach of performance of a contract other than a contract to marry, interest shall be recovered upon the principal sum whether liquidated or unliquidated, and shall be added to and be a part of the total sum awarded.

It seems that the jury brought in a sealed verdict for $1,770. Plaintiff’s attorney was not present, but when he came in, asked the trial judge to direct the clerk to add the interest. • The judge told him to notify his adversary, and plaintiff’s attorney then gave formal notice of the application to add interest, but for a day after the term at which the trial was held was over. It was ruled that the verdict could not be corrected by adding interest after the term at which the verdict was entered. Although such a rule was announced as late as May, 1927, in Urband v. Lubell (245 N. Y. 156), relating to the amendment of a verdict, the verdict in that case had been rendered in November, 1925, and this amendment did not relate to that action, since it was not pending or thereafter brought, as described in the amendment.

We think this section is a mandatory direction to the court to include in every verdict on a contract action the interest thereon, whether the demand was liquidated or unliquidated, and that the verdict or judgment may be corrected at any time prior to execution, without regard to the fact that the Trial Term is over. The correction was a mere amendment of the judgment to conform to a mandatory proviso of law.

The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion directing the clerk to add interest to the verdict granted, with ten dollars costs.

Dowling, P. J., Mebrell, Finch and Proskauer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Isaly v. Garde
2024 NY Slip Op 34311(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Kooperman v. Picoult
41 A.D.2d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Ferguson v. City of New York
67 Misc. 2d 812 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)
Davis v. McDaniel
60 Misc. 2d 390 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1969)
Merry Queen Transfer Corp. v. O'Rourke
266 F. Supp. 605 (E.D. New York, 1967)
Lesjac Realty Corp. v. Mulhauser
43 Misc. 2d 439 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Buffalo Oil Terminal, Inc. v. Kimmins & Sons, Inc.
42 Misc. 2d 499 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Gale v. Independent Textile Dyeing Co.
13 A.D.2d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Employees' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Empire City Iron Works, Inc.
19 Misc. 2d 963 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Rusciano & Son Corp. v. State
201 Misc. 690 (New York State Court of Claims, 1952)
D'Angelo v. State
200 Misc. 657 (New York State Court of Claims, 1951)
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Film Classics, Inc.
68 F. Supp. 563 (S.D. New York, 1946)
Rigopoulos v. Kervan
53 F. Supp. 829 (S.D. New York, 1943)
American Castype Corp. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co.
177 Misc. 13 (New York Supreme Court, 1941)
Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. v. Klaxon Co.
30 F. Supp. 425 (D. Delaware, 1939)
Greater New York Coal & Oil Corp. v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.
252 A.D. 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Newburgh Dress Co. v. Nadler & Nadler, Inc.
251 A.D. 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
William H. Waters, Inc. v. March
240 A.D. 120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Hollwedel v. Duffy-Mott Co.
238 A.D. 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Eff-Ess, Inc. v. New York Edison Co.
144 Misc. 724 (New York Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D. 458, 226 N.Y.S. 623, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-brinckerhoff-nyappdiv-1928.