Perrin Construction Co. v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrin Construction Co. v. Johnson

42 A.D.2d 834, 345 N.Y.S.2d 814

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1973

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 834 (Perrin Construction Co. v. Johnson) 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

Perrin Construction Co. v. Johnson, 42 A.D.2d 834, 345 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The record is clear that plaintiff’s cause of action arose on June 8, 1970 when defendants told plaintiff that they did not want it to do any further work on their home, and plaintiffs stopped work. CPLR 5001 (subd. [a]) provides that “ [i]nterest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract” and subdivision (b) states that it “ shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed”. Subdivision (c) states: “If a jury is discharged without specifying the date, the court upon motion shall fix the date.” CPLR 5003 provides for interest after the date of entry of judgment. When the record is complete, we may make the findings that the court below should have made (Matter of City of Rochester [Wolk], 32 A D 2d 886; Mellon v. Street, 23 A D 2d 210, 211). The judgment should be amended pursuant to CPLR 5019 (subd. [a]) to include interest from June 8, 1970. (Appeal from order of Ontario Supreme Court denying motion to amend judgment.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The record is clear that plaintiff’s cause of action arose on June 8, 1970 when defendants told plaintiff that they did not want it to do any further work on their home, and plaintiffs stopped work. CPLR 5001 (subd. [a]) provides that “ [i]nterest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract” and subdivision (b) states that it “ shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed”. Subdivision (c) states: “If a jury is discharged without specifying the date, the court upon motion shall fix the date.” CPLR 5003 provides for interest after the date of entry of judgment. When the record is complete, we may make the findings that the court below should have made (Matter of City of Rochester [Wolk], 32 A D 2d 886; Mellon v. Street, 23 A D 2d 210, 211). The judgment should be amended pursuant to CPLR 5019 (subd. [a]) to include interest from June 8, 1970. (Appeal from order of Ontario Supreme Court denying motion to amend judgment.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Marsh, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 834, 345 N.Y.S.2d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrin-construction-co-v-johnson-nyappdiv-1973.