Opinion
8157 Index 601008/10
01-22-2019
UNIVERSE ANTIQUES INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents, v. Joan M. GRALLA, Defendant–Respondent–Appellant.
Fischman & Fischman, New York (Doreen J. Fischman of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Jeremy Gutman, New York, for respondent-appellant.
Fischman & Fischman, New York (Doreen J. Fischman of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Jeremy Gutman, New York, for respondent-appellant.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered February 11, 2016, which, after a nonjury trial on damages, awarded plaintiffs damages jointly and severally, and directed the entry of judgment against defendant in the principal amount of $125,000, without prejudgment interest, unanimously modified, to direct the entry of judgment against defendant in the principal amount of $225,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
In a decision in a prior action between the parties, Justice Jane Solomon found that defendant had wired $100,000 to Alexander, the original owner of the sculpture, on February 18, 2005 to facilitate a contract between Doyle, her boyfriend, and Alexander. That decision was not appealed. Consequently, Supreme Court was barred by res judicata from finding that defendant did not benefit from those funds. Therefore, Supreme Court's decision that it would be inequitable to award plaintiffs the $100,000 that defendant paid to Alexander cannot be reached under a fair interpretation of the evidence ( Rigopoulos v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 459, 460, 653 N.Y.S.2d 667 [2d Dept. 1997] ; see also Watts v. State of New York, 25 A.D.3d 324, 809 N.Y.S.2d 5 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Warm v. State of New York, 308 A.D.2d 534, 536, 764 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2d Dept. 2003] ). However, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to award plaintiffs prejudgment interest (see CPLR 5001[a] ; John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hirsch, 77 A.D.3d 710, 711, 909 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2d Dept. 2010] ; Margo Props. v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 1029, 1030, 473 N.Y.S.2d 822 [1st Dept. 1984] ).
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.