Susi Contracting Co. v. Orlando

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Susi Contracting Co. v. Orlando

33 A.D.2d 548, 304 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3007

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 548 (Susi Contracting Co. v. Orlando) 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

Susi Contracting Co. v. Orlando, 33 A.D.2d 548, 304 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

—• Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to provide that interest at the rate of 6% on the recovery awarded shall run from November [549]*54929,1957, and otherwise affirmed, with disbursements only to plaintiff-respondent. With the exception of the direction for payment of interest, we conclude that the evidence fully supports the findings of fact and conclusions of the Special Referee, confirmed at Special Term. The allowance of interest on the accounting between the joint venturers is a matter for decision on equitable principles, and, under the circumstances here, we deem the appropriate date for the starting of the running of interest to be the date of the final payment by the contractor to the defendant. (See Jackson v. Hunt, Hill & Betts, 20 A D 2d 458; Shubert v. Lawrence, 27 A D 2d 292; cf. Sahley v. McKee, 371 F. 2d 720.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and McNally, JJ.

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

—• Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to provide that interest at the rate of 6% on the recovery awarded shall run from November [549]*54929,1957, and otherwise affirmed, with disbursements only to plaintiff-respondent. With the exception of the direction for payment of interest, we conclude that the evidence fully supports the findings of fact and conclusions of the Special Referee, confirmed at Special Term. The allowance of interest on the accounting between the joint venturers is a matter for decision on equitable principles, and, under the circumstances here, we deem the appropriate date for the starting of the running of interest to be the date of the final payment by the contractor to the defendant. (See Jackson v. Hunt, Hill & Betts, 20 A D 2d 458; Shubert v. Lawrence, 27 A D 2d 292; cf. Sahley v. McKee, 371 F. 2d 720.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 548, 304 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susi-contracting-co-v-orlando-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack