From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mid-State Precast Systems v. Corbetta Constr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 4, 1996
223 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 4, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Broome County (Coutant, J.).


In modifying plaintiff's judgment relating to payment for its work on the headquarters building of Union Carbide Corporation, this Court determined that plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date defendant Corbetta Construction Company, Inc. received its final payment from Union Carbide ( 202 A.D.2d 702, lvs dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 923, 86 N.Y.2d 855). The matter was remitted to Supreme Court for the determination of the singular issue of the date of that final payment. Contending that prejudgment interest was not due from such date, plaintiff sought to establish that prejudgment interest was due from a series of earlier dates, essentially rearguing the determination previously made by this Court ( see, supra). Supreme Court, limiting itself to the sole issue on remittal, found the date of the final payment to be September 20, 1982 and granted relief accordingly. Plaintiff appeals, contending that it was entitled to prejudgment interest for time periods prior to the final payment.

These appeals must be dismissed. On June 30, 1994, a week after entry of the modified judgment on June 22, 1994 and two weeks prior to the service and filing of its notice of appeal, plaintiff accepted payment in full of the judgment from defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company Inc., executed an unqualified satisfaction of the judgment against Aetna, and unconditionally assigned to Aetna all of its interest in the judgment against Corbetta. Plaintiff retained no rights in the matter ( see, Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v McCullough, 41 A.D.2d 161). Accordingly, plaintiff is not an aggrieved party within the purview of CPLR 5501 and 5511, and therefore lacks standing to appeal ( see, Langeloth Found. v Dickerson Pond Assocs., 149 A.D.2d 408). Having accepted the full benefits of the judgment, plaintiff is precluded from subsequently appealing therefrom ( see, Goepel v Kurtz Action Co., 216 N.Y. 343, 346; see also, Matter of Silverman [Hoe Co.], 305 N.Y. 13; Carmichael v General Elec. Co., 102 A.D.2d 838, 839).

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Mid-State Precast Systems v. Corbetta Constr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 4, 1996
223 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Mid-State Precast Systems v. Corbetta Constr

Case Details

Full title:MID-STATE PRECAST SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. CORBETTA CONSTRUCTION…

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

Date published: Jan 4, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
635 N.Y.S.2d 362

Citing Cases

Williams v. Hearburg

Plaintiff now appeals. Inasmuch as the general rule is that a party may not appeal where he or she has…

Kriesel v. May Department Stores Company

We note that plaintiff executed a satisfaction of judgment for the judgment awarding him damages for past and…