From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 20, 1964
20 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

February 20, 1964

Appeal from the Monroe Trial Term.

Present — Bastow, J.P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts by reducing the amount thereof to $1,090.30 and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: On March 4, 1963 after a trial without a jury the court directed judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages to his automobile caused by defendant's negligence. After this decision had been rendered the court, upon motion by plaintiff, awarded interest from the date of the accident. Before the Civil Practice Law and Rules abolished the distinction between property damage actions in which interest was granted as of right and those in which it was granted in the discretion of the trier of the facts, allowance of interest for damage to property negligently inflicted was discretionary. ( Purcell v. Long Is. Daily Press Pub. Co., 9 N.Y.2d 255; CPLR 5001, subd. [a].) Although, in the former instance, it was not necessary to make a demand for interest in the complaint or before the court rendered its decision ( Flamm v. Noble, 296 N.Y. 262), there was no authority for an award of interest without such a demand where the allowance was discretionary. (See, generally, De Long Corp. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 20 A.D.2d 104.) Furthermore, this action was commenced by the service of a summons alone more than two and a half years after the accident. The complaint served one year and four months later gave no indication that plaintiff would seek interest. The dispute between the parties involved only $350, the difference between the damages estimated by each side. Upon these facts it was an improvident exercise of discretion to amend the original decision by awarding $440 interest, an amount which more than equaled the sum in dispute. While plaintiff's right to such interest would be clear under the present statutory provision (CPLR 5001, subd. [a]), we conclude in the exercise of discretion that the issue should be decided under statutory and decisional law existing at the time of the trial. (CPLR 10003.)


Summaries of

Morris v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 20, 1964
20 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Morris v. New York Central Railroad

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MORRIS, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 20, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Spector v. Mermelstein

Although the facts which gave rise to the instant suit occurred prior to September 1, 1963, the effective…

Feel Heat, Inc. v. Centurion Agency, Inc.

Although prior to the effective date of this CPLR provision, New York courts held that prejudgment interest…