Sendelbach v. Sixty-Five West Broadway Equities

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sendelbach v. Sixty-Five West Broadway Equities

230 A.D.2d 728, 646 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8291

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 5, 1996·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover payment due under a stipulation of settlement, the defendants Stephen K. Easton and Andrew G. Spiros appeal from an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated November 15, 1995, which, inter alia, upon denying their motion to vacate a default judgment and granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend the judgment to correct computational errors, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $213,473.

Ordered that the amended order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, neither the interest rate on the underlying debt nor the default interest rate charged to them under the stipulation of agreement entered into by the parties was usurious (see, Banking Law § 14-a; Penal Law § 190.40; Klapper v Integrated Agric. Mgt. Co., 149 AD2d 765). In addition, the court properly amended the original order and judgment to cure a nonsubstantive computational error with respect to the interest rate applied therein (see, CPLR 3019; Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover payment due under a stipulation of settlement, the defendants Stephen K. Easton and Andrew G. Spiros appeal from an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated November 15, 1995, which, inter alia, upon denying their motion to vacate a default judgment and granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend the judgment to correct computational errors, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $213,473.

Ordered that the amended order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, neither the interest rate on the underlying debt nor the default interest rate charged to them under the stipulation of agreement entered into by the parties was usurious (see, Banking Law § 14-a; Penal Law § 190.40; Klapper v Integrated Agric. Mgt. Co., 149 AD2d 765). In addition, the court properly amended the original order and judgment to cure a nonsubstantive computational error with respect to the interest rate applied therein (see, CPLR 3019; Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Sendelbach v. Sixty-Five West Broadway Equities, 230 A.D.2d 728, 646 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

230 A.D.2d 728 (Sendelbach v. Sixty-Five West Broadway Equities) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related