Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc.

84 A.D.2d 911, 446 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16173
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 911 (Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc.) 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
Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Systems, Inc., 84 A.D.2d 911, 446 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur, Cardamone, J.P., not participating. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from so much of the amended judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, entered April 1, 1981, as awarded monetary damages to plaintiff with interest at the statutory rate of 6%. The only issue on appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to interest at the then statutory interest rate of 6% per annum or at a rate of. interest realized on conservative investment yields for the years in question as testified by the expert witness. Plaintiff justifiably maintains that defendant in delaying its remittances has realized an economic gain on plaintiff’s money which should be paid over to plaintiff as part of its damages. It was precisely to correct this unjust imbalance that CPLR 5004 has recently been amended to increase the rate of interest payable upon claims, verdicts and judgments from its previous level of 6% to 9% (L 1981, ch 258, eff June 25,1981). At the time of the entry of the judgment herein the court properly assessed the interest at 6% per annum (CPLR 5004). Unless discretion is given the court (CPLR 5001, subd [a]), interest should not be awarded without specific legislative authority (Kay Lewis Enterprises v “Lewis-Marshall Joint Venture”, 59 Misc 2d 862). (Appeal from amended judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court, J. O’C. Conway, J. — interest on accounts collected.) Present — Cardamone, J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

National Enerdrill Corp. v. Crown Drilling, Inc.
119 Misc. 2d 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
John W. Cowper Co. v. Buffalo Hotel Development Venture
91 A.D.2d 1183 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Friedler
91 A.D.2d 1193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 A.D.2d 911, 446 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/two-clinton-square-corp-v-computerized-recovery-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1981.