You are here: / / Court in Contract Action Does Not Have Power to Vary 9% Interest Rate
,

Court in Contract Action Does Not Have Power to Vary 9% Interest Rate

In a case with counterclaims sounding in contract and Labor Law 191-c (1) (re: payment of earned sales commissions after a contract is terminated), the Fourth Department noted that the court does not have discretion to vary the statutory 9% interest rate in a contract action:

…[W]e conclude that the court lacked discretion to vary the statutorily-prescribed interest rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004). As this Court has previously recognized, interest at the rate of 9% per annum is mandatory for “sum[s] awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract” (CPLR 5001 [a]…).  Polyfusion Electronics, Inc v Promark Eletronics, Inc…, 635.1, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER REDUCED BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND, REMORSE AND LACK OF A CRIMINAL HISTORY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
ARBITRATOR DID NOT EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY IN FINDING THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REQUIRED DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING NOTICE, BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE COULD BE TERMINATED FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Improper to Characterize Trial as “Search for Truth”
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL LAW WHICH PURPORTED TO TRANSFER THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE POLICE OFFICERS TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD (PAB) IS INVALID AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).
Car Dealership Was Not the Owner of a Car Lent to a Customer While Customer’s Vehicle Was Repaired—Therefore Dealership Was Not Vicariously Liable for Injury Caused by the Driver of the Loaned Car

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Agent Owed No Special Duty to Insured; No Duty to Advise Insured of Unpaid Premiums... Conspiracy to Commit Tort Not Recognized in New York