Opinion
No. 2021-258 Q C
10-21-2022
Health Value Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Antonette Holder, Appellant, v. Country Wide Insurance, Respondent.
Glinkenhouse Queen, Esqs. (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant. Thomas Torto, for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Glinkenhouse Queen, Esqs. (Alan Queen of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas Torto, for respondent.
PRESENT:: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered April 5, 2018. The order, in effect, denied plaintiff's motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment of that court entered March 17, 2017.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and plaintiff's motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment entered March 17, 2017 is granted.
This action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for a claim submitted to defendant on or about February 9, 1999, arising from an accident that occurred on September 24, 1998, was settled on July 31, 2008. Defendant did not pay the settlement amount, and a judgment was subsequently entered on March 17, 2017 (see CPLR 5003-a) awarding statutory no-fault interest at a simple 2% per month rate. Plaintiff moved, pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), to have the interest recalculated pursuant to the pre-2002 regulations, which required no-fault interest to be calculated at a compound rate (see former 11 NYCRR 65.15 [h] [1]). Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which, in effect, denied its motion.
Plaintiff correctly argues that the claim involved herein is governed by the former regulations providing for compound interest because the accident occurred prior to the effective date of the current regulations, which now provide for a simple rate of interest (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a], effective April 5, 2002; Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 A.D.3d 144, 155-156 [2021]). Consequently, plaintiff's motion should have been granted. We note that, contrary to the statement of the Civil Court, postjudgment interest in a no-fault action is governed by Insurance Law § 5106 and its implementing regulations, not the CPLR (see Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 A.D.3d 144).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and plaintiff's motion to recalculate, from a simple rate to a compound rate, an award of statutory no-fault interest in a judgment entered March 17, 2017 is granted.
ALIOTTA, P.J., GOLIA and BUGGS, JJ., concur.