Opinion
Decided November 18, 1986
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Eugene R. Wolin, J.
Samuel Goldstein for appellants.
Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Peter A. Mound of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The action was brought solely to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement reached during trial prior to any determination on the merits of the pending condemnation proceeding (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51). The only question presented concerns the interpretation of a term in the settlement agreement: whether "lawful interest" means interest at the statutory rate of 6% (see, General Municipal Law § 3-a) prevailing at the time the stipulation was made or interest at whatever rate might be applicable in condemnation proceedings at the time agreed upon for payment, November 1, 1981. Because this is a separate action on the agreement, our decision in Adventurers Whitestone Corp. v City of New York ( 65 N.Y.2d 83), relied upon by the majority at the Appellate Division, is irrelevant. Nevertheless, as stated by the Appellate Division majority, use of the term "lawful interest" having predated the nisi prius decision in Matter of South Bronx Neighborhood Dev. Plan ( 110 Misc.2d 571, affd sub nom. Matter of City of New York [Brookfield Refrig. Corp.], 89 A.D.2d 948, affd 58 N.Y.2d 532) could only signify interest at the 6% statutory rate.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.