From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

P.A. Building Company v. City of New York

Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
May 10, 2002
2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 30070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)

Opinion

0108777/1994.

May 10, 2002.


Defendant City of New York moves for an order "resettling" this Court's decision and order dated December 18, 2001, to: 1) correct the amount of the real estate tax refund awarded to defendant City to $162,938.36; 2) grant a judgment to defendant City in the amount of $266,923.23, for the overpayments the City made to plaintiff for rent escalations based on asbestos abatement expenditures from 1988 through 1993; 3) grant defendant City a recovery against plaintiff for the credits for over billing from 1988through 1993, conceded by plaintiff in the amount of $66,825.00; and 4) grant defendant City prejudgment interest on the items for which defendant is entitled to judgment.

In response to the motion, plaintiff agrees that $162,938.36 is the amount of the real estate tax refund, and that the Court's order should be corrected as such. Plaintiff also agrees that to the extent the City is entitled to recover this amount, prejudgment interest shall run from October 10, 1997. As to the escalations charges based on asbestos abatement expenditures, plaintiff agrees only as to the amount of $243,297.58, which is for 1988 through 1992; plaintiff disputes the amount for 1993, as well as the date from which interest should run on this portion of the overcharge counterclaim. In all other respects, plaintiff disputes the relief sought by defendant in this motion.

The motion is granted to the extent of correcting the typographical error in the third and final ordered paragraph of this Court's decision and order dated December 18, 2001, to state that amount that defendant City is entitled to on its Second Counterclaim is $162. 938.36, and adding to that ordered paragraph that defendant City is entitled to prejudgment interest on this amount from October 10, 1997.

The motion is further granted to the extent of adding to the second ordered paragraph, that defendant City is entitled a judgment against plaintiff P.A. Building Company, on a portion of its First Counterclaim in the amount of $243,297.58, which represents an undisputed portion of the overcharges relating to asbestos abatement expenditures for 1988 through 1992. To the extent the parties dispute the amount due, if any, for overcharges relating to asbestos abatement expenditures for 1993, as well as the date from which interest shall run on the entire asbestos abatement portion of the First Counterclaim, these issues are reserved for determination at trial, together with the balance of defendant's First Counterclaim. In all other respects, defendant's motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendant City of New York's motion is granted to the extent that the third and final ordered paragraph of this Court's decision and order dated December 18, 2001 is corrected so that the amount which defendant City of New York is entitled to on its Second Counterclaim against plaintiff P.A. Building Company is$162,938.36, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, together with prejudgment interest from October 10,1997; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant City of New York's motion is granted on consent to the extent of adding to the second ordered paragraph, that defendant City of New York is entitled a judgment against plaintiff P.A. Building Co., on a portion of its First Counterclaim in the amount of $243,297.58, which represents an undisputed portion of the overcharges relating to asbestos abatement expenditures for 1988 through 1992, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

ORDERED that to the extent the parties dispute the amount due, if any, for overcharges relating to asbestos abatement expenditures for 1993, as well as the date from which interest shall run on the entire asbestos abatement portion of the First Counterclaim, these issues are reserved for determination at trial, together with the balance of defendant City's First Counterclaim; and it is further

ORDERED that in all other respects, defendant City's motion is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.


Summaries of

P.A. Building Company v. City of New York

Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
May 10, 2002
2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 30070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)
Case details for

P.A. Building Company v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:P.A. BUILDING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County

Date published: May 10, 2002

Citations

2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 30070 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)

Citing Cases

P.A. Bldg. Co. v. City of N.Y

The appeal brings up for review a prior nonfinal order of that Appellate Division, entered May 20, 2003 ( 305…