From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-00426

Argued February 19, 2002.

September 24, 2002.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated October 26, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was to confirm the referee's report dated August 10, 2000, awarding interest from September 1, 1983, to July 31, 2000, and granted that branch of defendant's cross motion which was to reject so much of the referee's report as awarded interest from September 1, 1983, to July 31, 2000, and directs that interest be calculated from September 1, 1983, to a date only two years after the date of the order deciding its motion for summary judgment, or, in effect, June 18, 1987.

Russ Russ, P.C., Massapequa, N.Y. (Kenneth J. Lauri and Ira Levine of counsel), for appellant.

Anthony J. Sabino, Bethpage, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to confirm the referee's report insofar as it awarded interest is granted, and that branch of the cross motion which was to reject the report as to interest is denied.

The issue raised on this appeal is whether the amount of interest due the plaintiff could be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay of the plaintiff's predecessor in prosecuting the action. This very issue was considered and rejected by this Court as a remaining contention when the matter was last before us (see LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma, 285 A.D.2d 628). Thus, that ruling became the law of the case and the amount of interest due cannot be limited on the ground that the respondents were prejudiced by the delay in prosecution (see Prato v. Vigliotta, 277 A.D.2d 214; New York TRW Tit. Ins. Inc. v. Wade's Canadian Inn and Cocktail Lounge, 255 A.D.2d 823).

PRUDENTI, P.J., FEUERSTEIN, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma

Case Details

Full title:LDV ENTERPRISES, INC., appellant, v. PHILIP PUMA, ET AL., respondents, ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 24, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 394