Williams v. City of New York, 111 A.D.3d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Williams v. City of New York, 111 A.D.3d 420 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arlus Owner LLC v. Theodoropoulos
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Britt v City of New York, 151 AD3d 606, 607 (1st Dept. 2017); Phillips v New York Daily News, 111 AD3d 420, 421 (1st Dept. 2013).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Defendants’ conduct in producing and televising a show depicting the medical care provided at defendant hospital that included a pixilated image of plaintiffs’ decedent, who was not identified, was not so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Howell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121 [1993]; Phillips v New York Daily News, 111 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2013]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Soltero v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 82 NY2d 863, 866-867 [1993]; see also Williams v City of New York, 111 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2013]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Soltero v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 82 NY2d 863, 866-867 [1993]; see also Williams v City of New York, 111 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burnett Williams
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 7, 2013.
111 A.D.3d 420
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 22, 2012, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to correct the rate of interest on the judgment from 9% to 3% pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is uncontested that the rate of interest against NYCTA may be no more than 3% (Public Authorities Law § 1212 [6]). As defendants were found jointly and severally liable for 100% of the judgment, the proper interest rate was 3% (see Bello v New York City Tr. Auth., 50 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2008]; Klos v New York City Tr. Auth., 240 AD2d 635, 638 [2d Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 846 [1997]). Moreover, defendants assert that NYCTA is bound to indemnify the City pursuant to the lease relating to the subject property. Plaintiff does not deny this assertion, and thus, NYCTA is the real party in interest, and the court properly recalculated the interest rate at 3% (see Ebert v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 82 NY2d 863 [1993]). Finally, as the rate of interest was not argued by the parties or decided by the court, and the rate is mandated by statute, this ministerial error may be corrected even after the underlying substantive appellate process is complete (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ.