As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. For the period from April 1, 1938, to January 11, 1940, we hold, on the basis of the prior controlling decisions, that interest is payable at the six per cent rate. ( Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison, 262 App. Div. 895; Hammond v. Lawrence Investing Co., Inc., 262 App. Div. 900; Royal Court Realty Co., Inc., v. Thomas, 259 App. Div. 313.) For the period from January 11, 1940, the date the city of New York acquired title by condemnation proceedings to a substantial part of the mortgaged premises, to May 15, 1941, the date the city made partial payment of the award in an amount more than sufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt, we hold that the interest payable is at the rate of four per cent. Regardless of the means employed in obtaining the award from the city or the method used in applying it in satisfaction of the mortgage debt, the record leaves no doubt that the respondent trustee actually received from the city its check representing the payment of the award; that upon receipt thereof the respondent trustee delivered to the city a satisfaction of the mortgage debt and surrendered to appellants all the papers evidencing such debt; and that in accordance with the intention of the parties the resp

Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint, after trial by the court. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. ( Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison, 262 App. Div. 895.) Lazansky, P.J., Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Adel, J., concurs on the authority of Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison ( supra) adhering, however, to the views he expressed in the dissenting memorandum in that case.

Hammond v. Lawrence Investing Co., Inc. ( 262 App. Div. 900) is distinguishable upon the explicit language used in that case. Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison ( 262 App. Div. 895) and Royal Court Realty Co., Inc., v. Thomas (259 id. 313) are not in point. There the question involved was the interest rate after the extension agreement had expired.