From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grossinger Realty Corporation v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 15, 1964
202 N.E.2d 743 (N.Y. 1964)

Summary

In Grossinger Realty Corp. v State of New York (15 N.Y.2d 541, 543), the Court of Appeals, in a 1964 decision, affirmed an Appellate Division holding (20 A.D.2d 602) that "the Legislature did not intend that the State should be burdened with the payment of interest on the award during the process" of claimant's negotiating with the mortgagees regarding the interest rate to be paid.

Summary of this case from Sydney Family Corp v. State

Opinion

Argued September 29, 1964

Decided October 15, 1964

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, RONALD E. COLEMAN, J.

Lazarus I. Levine for appellant.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Jean M. Coon of counsel), for respondent.



Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and SCILEPPI. Taking no part: Judge BERGAN.


Summaries of

Grossinger Realty Corporation v. State of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 15, 1964
202 N.E.2d 743 (N.Y. 1964)

In Grossinger Realty Corp. v State of New York (15 N.Y.2d 541, 543), the Court of Appeals, in a 1964 decision, affirmed an Appellate Division holding (20 A.D.2d 602) that "the Legislature did not intend that the State should be burdened with the payment of interest on the award during the process" of claimant's negotiating with the mortgagees regarding the interest rate to be paid.

Summary of this case from Sydney Family Corp v. State
Case details for

Grossinger Realty Corporation v. State of New York

Case Details

Full title:GROSSINGER REALTY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 15, 1964

Citations

202 N.E.2d 743 (N.Y. 1964)
202 N.E.2d 743
254 N.Y.S.2d 233

Citing Cases

Sydney Family Corp v. State

Although the same equitable arguments would seem to apply to postjudgment interest suspension as to…

Lerner Pavlick Realty v. State

The purpose of Court of Claims Act § 19 (4) is to "penalize a claimant who deliberately or negligently fails…