Opinion
2020-551 K C
02-04-2022
PRO-MED MEDICAL, P.C., as Assignee of Jennifer Murillo, Jacinto Vargas and Juanita Vargas, Respondent, v. MVAIC, Appellant.
Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Shaun Malone and Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for appellant. Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP (Jennifer Greenhalgh Howard, Justin Skaferowsky and William Purdy of counsel), for respondent.
Bruno, Gerbino, Soriano & Aitken, LLP (Shaun Malone and Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for appellant.
Israel, Israel & Purdy, LLP (Jennifer Greenhalgh Howard, Justin Skaferowsky and William Purdy of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 26, 2001 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to its assignors, who were allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 10, 2001. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear in the action. Upon plaintiff's motion, a default judgment was entered on October 3, 2001, awarding plaintiff the sum of $19,893.34, which included the principal amount sought in the complaint and prejudgment statutory no-fault interest. On March 1, 2018, defendant tendered payment to plaintiff in the amounts of $16,147.12 for the principal sum, $1,071.22 for prejudgment interest, $2,550 for attorney's fees, $125 for costs and fees, and $29,407.31 for postjudgment interest at a rate of nine per centum per annum pursuant to CPLR 5004. Plaintiff rejected the tender on the ground that defendant had not offered the full amount of interest due.
By order to show cause dated May 9, 2018, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 5021 (a) (2), for an order directing the clerk to enter a satisfaction of the $19,893.34 judgment, as the "judgment has been fully paid and satisfied." In the alternative, defendant moved to compel plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment. Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered September 21, 2018, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion.
Postjudgment interest accrues at the rate of 2% per month in a no-fault action, as " Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and former 11 NYCRR 65.15 (h), which [provide] specific [interest] directives, supersede the interest provisions contained in CPLR 5004, the more general statute" ( Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. , 197 AD3d 144, 156 [2021] ). Consequently, defendant's contention that the postjudgment interest accrued at the rate of 9% per year pursuant to CPLR 5004 is without merit (see id. ). Additionally, since former 11 NYCRR 65.15 (h) was still in effect at the time of the underlying accident in 2001, the 2% per month interest rate is compounded (see id. ).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.