District courts have applied these holdings to prevent parties from including interest in the amount in controversy if it arose solely because of a delay in payment, even when the interest is provided for by a contractual provision. See Crane Equip. & Servs., Inc. v. B.E.T. Const., Inc., No. 14-CV-175S, 2015 WL 471323, at *2-3 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2015) (monthly interest charge for unpaid balance, provided for by contract, constituted interest accruing by virtue of delay in payment and therefore could not be included in amount in controversy); A.K. Suda, Inc. v. Purvis Marine Ltd., No. 08-3971, 2008 WL 4948990, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2008) (contract provision applying 1.5% interest charge on invoices unpaid for more than 30 days was "precisely the type of interest meant to be excluded" by § 1332); Meding v. Receptopharm, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 348, 353 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (post-default interest imposed by contract could not be included in amount in controversy because it was a mere accessory to the principal obligation). The same result should obtain here, where the 18% interest sought by PSI is clearly a sum due because of Dynamic's delay in payment, and is incidental to the breach presented by PSI's claim, so the Court will not consider it as part of PSI's jurisdictional amount in controversy.