Opinion
2013-11-7
Burnett WILLIAMS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant. Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for respondents.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant. Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Lawrence Heisler of counsel), for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, RICHTER, FEINMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 22, 2012, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to correct the rate of interest on the judgment from 9% to 3% pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212(6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
It is uncontested that the rate of interest against NYCTA may be no more than 3% (Public Authorities Law § 1212[6] ). As defendants were found jointly and severally liable for 100% of the judgment, the proper interest rate was 3% ( see Bello v. New York City Tr. Auth., 50 A.D.3d 511, 856 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1st Dept.2008]; Klos v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d 635, 638, 659 N.Y.S.2d 97 [2d Dept.1997], lv. dismissed91 N.Y.2d 846, 667 N.Y.S.2d 680, 690 N.E.2d 489 [1997] ). Moreover, defendants assert that NYCTA is bound to indemnify the City pursuant to the lease relating to the subject property. Plaintiff does not deny this assertion, and thus, NYCTA is the real party in interest, and the court properly recalculated the interest rate at 3% ( see Ebert v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 863, 609 N.Y.S.2d 163, 631 N.E.2d 105 [1993] ). Finally, as the rate of interest was not argued by the parties or decided by the court, and the rate is mandated by statute, this ministerial error may be corrected even after the underlying substantive appellate process is complete ( see Kiker v. Nassau County, 85 N.Y.2d 879, 626 N.Y.S.2d 55, 649 N.E.2d 1199 [1995] ).