section 5001(a) prejudgment interest in New York

2026The court providently exercised its discretion by denying the wife's request for prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001(a) for the portion of the LSP that was due in April of 2024 but not paid by the husband until November of 2024 ( see Sebrell v Svet , 230 AD3d 401 , 405 [1st Dept 2024]). "[T]here is no automatic entitlement to prejudgment interest, under CPLR 5001, in matrimonial litigation" ( Rubin v Rubin , 1 AD3d 220, 221 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]), and the PNA did not contain any provisions regarding the payment of interest with respect to the LSP.

2025Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001(a) on plaintiff's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the apartment ( see Rubin v Rubin , 1 AD3d 220, 221 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]).

2014Plaintiff maintains that he was also entitled to an award of interest pursuant to CPLR 5002 from the court’s November 2006 judgment finding that defendant had breached the parties’ contract, as in a bifurcated trial (see Love v State of New York, 78 NY2d 540, 544 [1991]).

2003To the contrary, interest “is simply the cost of having the use of another person’s money for a specified period * * * It is intended to indemnify successful plaintiffs ‘for the nonpayment of what is due to them * * *.’ ” (Love, 78 NY2d at 544 .) Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that they are entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001.

2021Since their counterclaims [*2]arise from the parties' lease, defendants are entitled to such interest ( Solow v Wellner , 86 NY2d 582, 589-590 [1995]) which should be computed on remand.

2000The same implied breach of lease entitles the tenant to prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001 (a) (see, Solow v Wellner, 86 NY2d 582, 589-590 ).

2022Co. , 8 NY3d 583, 589-590 [2007]).

2022Co. , 8 NY3d 583, 589-590 [2007]; see generally Toledo v Iglesia Ni Christo , 18 NY3d 363, 369 [2012]).

2014We agree with the petitioner that, in addition to an award of interest pursuant to CPLR 5002 from the date of the verdict to the date of judgment, he is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) from the date of the wrongful taking of the funds until verdict (see Matter of Ferrara, 50 AD3d 899, 901 [2008]).

2014We agree with the petitioner that, in addition to an award of interest pursuant to CPLR 5002 from the date of the verdict to the date of judgment, he is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) from the date of the wrongful taking of the funds until verdict (see Matter of Ferrara, 50 AD3d 899, 901 [2008]).

2014Co., 268 AD2d 213 [2000])” (Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333, 333 [2000]; see Matter of Ellison v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 33 AD3d 457, 458 [2006]).

2014Co., 268 AD2d 213 [2000])” (Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333, 333 [2000]; see Matter of Ellison v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 33 AD3d 457, 458 [2006]).

2014Since this proceeding does not involve obligations on which interest is due on regular installment payments, interest on each wrongful taking should be awarded from the date of each wrongful taking (see CPLR 5001 [b]; cf. Baer v Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP, 57 AD3d 817, 819 [2008]).

2014Since this proceeding does not involve obligations on which interest is due on regular installment payments, interest on each wrongful taking should be awarded from the date of each wrongful taking (see CPLR 5001 [b]; cf. Baer v Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP, 57 AD3d 817, 819 [2008]).

2014“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (H om v Hom, 101 AD3d 816 , 817 [2012], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2014“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds ‘warranted by the facts,’ bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the testimony” (H om v Hom, 101 AD3d 816 , 817 [2012], quoting Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

2014Co., 268 AD2d 213 [2000])” (Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333, 333 [2000]; see Matter of Ellison v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 33 AD3d 457, 458 [2006]).

2014Co., 268 AD2d 213 [2000])” (Chechak v Hakim, 269 AD2d 333, 333 [2000]; see Matter of Ellison v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 33 AD3d 457, 458 [2006]).

2000Plaintiffs’ contentions that they are entitled to predecision interest notwithstanding, we have repeatedly held that back pay awards in judicial salary disparity actions should not include prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) (see, Barr v Crosson, 263 AD2d 798, 799 , lv granted 94 NY2d 754 , revd 95 NY2d 164 ; Davis v Rosenblatt, supra, at 173 ; see also, Affronti v Crosson, 265 AD2d 817, 818 ; Deutsch v Crosson, supra, at 839).

1999In Davis v Rosenblatt ( 159 AD2d 163, 173 , appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 834 , 79 NY2d 822 , lv denied 79 NY2d 757 ), a case factually identical to the instant action, this Court held that back pay awards in judicial salary disparity actions “should not include prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a)”.

2025Co. , 73 AD3d 1023, 1027 , citing Brent v Keesler , 32 AD2d 804, 805 ).

2010On the question of interest, CPLR 5001 (a) provides that “[ijnterest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract . . . except that in an action of an equitable nature, interest and the rate and date from which it shall be computed shall be in the court’s discretion.” Case law indicates that an award of predecision or preverdict interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 on a damages award on a cause of action to recover damages in quantum meruit is mandatory, as it would be on a damages award on a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract (see Bre

2006Goldman v Rosen, 10 Misc 3d 1065[A] , 2005 NY Slip Op 52152[U] , *6 [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County 2005].) The First Department in Ash & Miller v Freedman has awarded interest under CPLR 5001 (a) “as a matter of law” on judgment for unpaid attorney fees. ( 114 AD2d 823, 823 [1st Dept 1985] [mem], citing Delulio v 320-57 Corp., 99 AD2d 253 [1st Dept 1984].) An attorney fee award, according to the First Department, “ ‘represents] a conditional award or prerogative which does not mature until the underlying action or proceeding has been determined.’ ” (Solow Mgt.

1988It has been generally held that interest on a claim prior to verdict, in the case of injury to or loss or destruction of property, is awarded to fully compensate the aggrieved party for the loss sustained (Matter of Rochester Carting Co. v Levitt, 36 NY2d 264, 268 ), and is awarded as a matter of right, notwithstanding the failure to demand interest in the complaint or to request the jury to declare an award of interest (see, Flamm v Noble, 296 NY 262, 268 ; see also, Delulio v 320-57 Corp., 99 AD2d 253 ).

1999The Second Department has similarly held (see, Deutsch v Crosson, 171 AD2d 837 , lv denied 78 NY2d 857 ).

1998In opposing plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest, defendants cite two pay parity cases in which prejudgment interest was denied (Davis v Rosenblatt, 159 AD2d 163, 173 [3d Dept 1990]; Deutsch v Crosson, 171 AD2d 837, 839 [2d Dept 1991]).

2026Ceramics Corp. , 84 AD3d 1224, 1226 [2d Dept 2011] [where "the plaintiff's damages accrued on various dates" over a two-year duration, "a reasonable intermediate date would be the date halfway between the date of the first and last paycheck the plaintiff would have received had the agreement not been breached"]; Matter of Argyle Realty Assoc. v NY State Div. of Human Rights , 65 AD3d 273, 286 [2d Dept 2009] [April 15, 1996 date selected as a reasonable intermediate date based on damages that occurred between November 1995 and September 1996].) Conclusion Pursuant to the discussion above, the C

2026Ceramics Corp. , 84 AD3d 1224, 1226 [2d Dept 2011] [where "the plaintiff's damages accrued on various dates" over a two-year duration, "a reasonable intermediate date would be the date halfway between the date of the first and last paycheck the plaintiff would have received had the agreement not been breached"]; Matter of Argyle Realty Assoc. v NY State Div. of Human Rights , 65 AD3d 273, 286 [2d Dept 2009] [April 15, 1996 date selected as a reasonable intermediate date based on damages that occurred between November 1995 and September 1996].) Conclusion Pursuant to the discussion above, the C

2025Since this is, in essence, a breach of contract action, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 ( see iGo Mktg. & Entertainment, LLC v Hartbeat Prods., LLC , 217 AD3d 753, 755 ; Sokolik v Pateman , 114 AD3d 839, 841 ).

2025Since this is, in essence, a breach of contract action, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 ( see iGo Mktg. & Entertainment, LLC v Hartbeat Prods., LLC , 217 AD3d 753, 755; Sokolik v Pateman , 114 AD3d 839, 841).

2025Since this is, in essence, a breach of contract action, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 ( see iGo Mktg. & Entertainment, LLC v Hartbeat Prods., LLC , 217 AD3d 753, 755 ; Sokolik v Pateman , 114 AD3d 839, 841 ).

2025Since this is, in essence, a breach of contract action, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 ( see iGo Mktg. & Entertainment, LLC v Hartbeat Prods., LLC , 217 AD3d 753, 755; Sokolik v Pateman , 114 AD3d 839, 841).

2022His arguments concerning Supreme Court's adherence to its prior decision upon reargument are academic in light of the court's confirmation of the arbitration award pursuant to respondent's renewal motion, and we therefore do not address those arguments so as to render the advisory opinion that respondent seeks ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d 801, 810-811 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]). [FN2] As to his statutory interest argument, the cash consideration to which respondent is entitled is not a sum awarded against petitioner, petitioner having never held th

2022Co. , 8 NY3d 583, 589-590 [2007]; see generally Toledo v Iglesia Ni Christo , 18 NY3d 363, 369 [2012]).

2022Plaintiff's contention that the motion court in the fee dispute would have awarded her predecision interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 is at best speculative ( see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer , 8 NY3d 438, 442, 443 [2007]; see also Manufacturer's & Traders Trust Co. v Reliance Ins.