TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

Two Clinton Square Corp. v. Computerized Recovery Sys., Inc., 84 A.D.2d 911 (1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 13, 1981
Citations
84 A.D.2d 911446 N.Y.S.2d 6631981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16173

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1983: 31985: 12000: 119832026peak 1983 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Enterprises v. "Lewis-Marshall Joint Venture", 59 Misc. 2d 862 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list