You are here: / / Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been...
,

Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been Applied to Breach of Contract Damages (Even Though the Monthly Payments Were Deposited in an Escrow Account During Litigation)

The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been awarded prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for breach of contract at the statutory 9% rate, not the contractual 18% rate which was included in the agreed monthly installment payments:

…CPLR 5001(a) mandates an award of prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for its breach of contract even though the monthly payments due were deposited in an escrow account during the pendency of this action, and [defendant] received no benefit from the disputed payments while they were held in escrow … . However, the Surrogate’s Court improperly applied interest on the monthly payments due at the rate of 18% per annum. “When a claim is predicated on a breach of contract, the applicable rate of prejudgment interest varies depending on the nature and terms of the contract” … . The contract rate of interest will be “used to calculate interest on principal prior to loan maturity or a default in performance,” and in the absence of “a provision in the contract addressing the interest rate that governs after principal is due or in the event of a breach, New York’s statutory rate will be applied as the default rate” … . Under the terms of the agreement at issue here, each monthly payment includes interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since the contract rate has already been applied to each monthly payment prior to its maturity, and the agreement does not include a provision addressing the interest rate that governs after each monthly payment is due or in the event of a breach, the Surrogate’s Court should have applied interest upon each monthly payment from the date it became due at the statutory rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004…). Ross v Ross Metals Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 07466, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2007 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THE INITIAL ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT),
THE TENANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION BECAUSE THE RELIEF WAS SOUGHT AFTER THE DEADLINE IN THE NOTICE TO CURE; THAT DEADLINE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE LEASE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT EXTENDED BY THE COVID-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).
“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined
STATING THE WRONG DATE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM RENDERED THE NOTICE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; THE NOTICE THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND THE 90-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A CLAIM, RENDERING THE CLAIM FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF LATER UNTIMELY; THE DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PROVISIONS OF POLICY MANUAL DID NOT CONSTITUTE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS.
LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.
FAMILY COURT HELD A HEARING IN THE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING BUT DID NOT STATE IN ITS DECISION THE FACTS RELIED UPON TO DENY THE PETITION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE, REVERSED FAMILY COURT, AND GRANTED MOTHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Sudden Stopping” and “Emergency Doctrine” Jury Instructions Proper... Consecutive Sentences for Possession of Weapon and the Crime Committed Later...