Opinion
No. 75
06-02-2016
CRP/EXTELL PARCEL I, L.P., Respondent, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, in His Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of New York, et al., Respondents, and 3to4, LLC, et al., Appellants.
Cohen & Coleman, LLP, New York City (John A. Coleman, Jr., Richard N. Cohen and Joshua N. Cohen of counsel), for appellants. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason C. Cyrulnik and Edward J. Normand of counsel), for respondent.
Cohen & Coleman, LLP, New York City (John A. Coleman, Jr., Richard N. Cohen and Joshua N. Cohen of counsel), for appellants.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk (Jason C. Cyrulnik and Edward J. Normand of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
Petitioner CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P., the sponsor of newly-constructed luxury condominium
units in Manhattan, filed an offering plan in 2006 with the Attorney General's office. Under the plan, the purchaser of a unit was required to make a down payment upon the signing of a purchase agreement, with the down payment to be held in an interest-bearing escrow account. The plan also provided that, if the first closing did not occur by September 1, 2008, the purchaser would have the right to rescind the purchase agreement and have the down payment plus any interest earned returned.
Respondents constitute 41 purchasers who entered into purchase agreements with CRP between 2006 and 2008. When the first closing did not occur by the rescission date, the purchasers demanded return of their down payments. CRP refused, claiming that the September 1, 2008 date indicated in the plan was a “scrivener's error” and that the actual rescission date should have been September 1, 2009. The purchasers filed applications seeking release of their down payments with the Attorney General who, after considering all the relevant facts and legal issues presented by the parties, found in the purchasers' favor and ordered the down payments returned.
CRP then brought this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Attorney General's determinations as arbitrary and capricious and seeking reformation of the purchase agreements based on the claimed scrivener's error.
In January 2012, Supreme Court denied CRP's petition to annul the Attorney General's determinations, directed the release and return of the down payments with accumulated escrow interest, and dismissed the action (34 Misc.3d 1214 [A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50073[U], 2012 WL 181412 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County 2012] ). CRP appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed Supreme Court's judgment (101 A.D.3d 473, 957 N.Y.S.2d 293 [1st Dept.2012] ). In December 2012, CRP returned the down payments and accumulated escrow interest to the purchasers.
While CRP was appealing Supreme Court's judgment dismissing its action, some of the purchasers filed a motion seeking an award of statutory interest under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5001. Supreme Court granted the motion (2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 32329[U], 2012 WL 4043870 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County 2012] ), and in August 2013, directed entry of a judgment of approximately $4.9 million, representing interest at the statutory rate. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed; the Court denied the purchasers' motion and vacated the statutory interest judgment (124 A.D.3d 560, 2 N.Y.S.3d 116 [1st Dept.2015] ).
We agree with the Appellate Division that Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to award statutory interest on the January 2012 judgment that dismissed the petition. Contrary to the purchasers' contention, the January 2012 paper, denominated an “order,” was a final judgment dismissing the proceeding (see Matter of De Paula v. Memory Gardens, 90 A.D.2d 886, 886, 456 N.Y.S.2d 522 [3d Dept.1982] ). Once Supreme Court dismissed CRP's petition and judgment was entered, the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the purchasers' postjudgment motion for statutory interest (see CPLR 7806 ; see also De Paula, 90 A.D.2d at 886, 456 N.Y.S.2d 522 ).
Chief Judge DIFIORE and Judges PIGOTT, RIVERA, ABDUS–SALAAM, STEIN, FAHEY and GARCIA concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.