Zahavi v. JS Barkats PLLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zahavi v. JS Barkats PLLC

138 A.D.3d 618, 29 N.Y.S.3d 161

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

DecidedApril 28, 2016

Docket109 151635/13

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 618 (Zahavi v. JS Barkats PLLC) 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

Zahavi v. JS Barkats PLLC, 138 A.D.3d 618, 29 N.Y.S.3d 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 9, 2015, awarding plaintiff interest at the statutory rate of 9% on a previously awarded principal sum, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered December 5, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle a prior order, unanimously affirmed, and appeal from said judgment, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 16, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his claim for an additional sum, unanimously dismissed, with costs to be paid by defendants.

Supreme Court acted within its authority in resettling an order to award interest owed to plaintiff (see e.g. Williams v City of New York, 111 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp. [Alphonse Hotel Corp.], 293 AD2d 354 [1st Dept 2002]). The court properly determined that the period of interest should commence from the date on which plaintiff established that defendants lacked any good faith *619 basis for retaining the principal sum in escrow and therefore were no longer entitled to the protection of Judiciary Law § 497 (5), and could not be considered stakeholders within the meaning of CPLR 1006 (f). It is of no consequence that defendants received no benefit from the money because it was held in their IOLA account (see Toledo v Iglesia Ni Christo, 18 NY3d 363, 369 [2012]).

Plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment is dismissed since it concerns the claim he voluntarily discontinued pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be unavailing.

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

The decision and order of this Court entered herein on February 4, 2016 (136 AD3d 425 [2016]) is hereby recalled and vacated (see 2016 NY Slip Op 71785[U] [2016] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 9, 2015, awarding plaintiff interest at the statutory rate of 9% on a previously awarded principal sum, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered December 5, 2014, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle a prior order, unanimously affirmed, and appeal from said judgment, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 16, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his claim for an additional sum, unanimously dismissed, with costs to be paid by defendants.

Supreme Court acted within its authority in resettling an order to award interest owed to plaintiff (see e.g. Williams v City of New York, 111 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp. [Alphonse Hotel Corp.], 293 AD2d 354 [1st Dept 2002]). The court properly determined that the period of interest should commence from the date on which plaintiff established that defendants lacked any good faith *619 basis for retaining the principal sum in escrow and therefore were no longer entitled to the protection of Judiciary Law § 497 (5), and could not be considered stakeholders within the meaning of CPLR 1006 (f). It is of no consequence that defendants received no benefit from the money because it was held in their IOLA account (see Toledo v Iglesia Ni Christo, 18 NY3d 363, 369 [2012]).

Plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment is dismissed since it concerns the claim he voluntarily discontinued pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b).

We have considered all other claims and find them to be unavailing.

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

The decision and order of this Court entered herein on February 4, 2016 (136 AD3d 425 [2016]) is hereby recalled and vacated (see 2016 NY Slip Op 71785[U] [2016] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 618, 29 N.Y.S.3d 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zahavi-v-js-barkats-pllc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack