You are here: / / SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER CPLR 3001 TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY...
,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER CPLR 3001 TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE PROPER RATE FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST; ANOTHER COURT’S PRIOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROPER INTEREST RATE WAS MERELY ADVISORY (I.E., NOT ON THE MERITS) AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) Supreme Court had the power to issue a declaratory judgment in this hybrid proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment on the rate of post-judgment interest; and (2) Supreme Court correctly found that dicta in a prior ruling about the proper post-judgment interest rate (i.e., that the rate should be 9% per year under the CPLR, not 2% per month under the Insurance Law) was merely “advisory” and therefore was not controlling under the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, or law of the case. Supreme Court’s finding that the Insurance Law interest rate applied was affirmed. Using that rate the original 2001 judgment of $8,842.49 had apparently grown to $229,981.66 as of 2015:

CPLR 3001 uniquely vests the Supreme Court with authority to render declaratory judgments to the exclusion of other courts of the state. … [T]o the extent [respondent] wished to obtain a declaratory judgment governing the rate of interest on its judgment, … with appellate remedies correctly foreclosed, the Supreme Court was the only court where it could seek redress on that issue. * * *

… [T]he Appellate Term’s expression in its decision and order dated August 18, 2017, regarding the applicable rate of interest was not determined on the merits, but was instead merely advisory. * * *

… [Appellant] was unable to establish that there was a determination on the merits in any prior proceeding about the proper rate of interest applicable to the judgment, as to preclude the Supreme Court from considering the issue de novo … . Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 04484, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD FILED HIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYC DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HE WAS PRECLUDED UNDER THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES DOCTRINE FROM BRINGING THIS COURT ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
In the Absence of Finding of Aggravating Circumstances an Order of Protection Cannot Exceed Two Years

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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE... STATUTORY AMENDMENTS REPEALING MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE...