Milbrandt v. A. P. Green Refractories Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Milbrandt v. A. P. Green Refractories Co.

167 A.D.2d 845, 562 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14387

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 845 (Milbrandt v. A. P. Green Refractories Co.) 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

Milbrandt v. A. P. Green Refractories Co., 167 A.D.2d 845, 562 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by reducing the judgment to eliminate interest assessed on the future damages. The statute (EPTL 5-4.3 [a]) clearly provides that "[ijnterest upon the principal sum recovered by the plaintiff from the date of the decedent’s death shall be added to and be a part of the total sum awarded.” The plain meaning of the statute provides for interest on the "principal sum recovered” without distinguishing between [846]*846prejudgment and postjudgment losses of future income (Soulier v Hughes, 119 AD2d 951, 954). We recognize that the rationale in Woodling v Garrett Corp. (813 F2d 543) has merit. Any inequity, however, which may result from compliance with the statute is a matter for the Legislature and not for the courts. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Feeman, J.—correction of judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by reducing the judgment to eliminate interest assessed on the future damages. The statute (EPTL 5-4.3 [a]) clearly provides that "[ijnterest upon the principal sum recovered by the plaintiff from the date of the decedent’s death shall be added to and be a part of the total sum awarded.” The plain meaning of the statute provides for interest on the "principal sum recovered” without distinguishing between [846]*846prejudgment and postjudgment losses of future income (Soulier v Hughes, 119 AD2d 951, 954). We recognize that the rationale in Woodling v Garrett Corp. (813 F2d 543) has merit. Any inequity, however, which may result from compliance with the statute is a matter for the Legislature and not for the courts. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Feeman, J.—correction of judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 845, 562 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milbrandt-v-a-p-green-refractories-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack