FDIC v. A & R CONST., INC., 91 CV 2900.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 91 CV 2900.,91 CV 2900. |
| Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as conservator for Crossland Federal Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v. A & R CONSTRUCTION, INC., Westminster Construction, Inc., doing business as Westminster Construction Co., Bernard Renzi, Philip B. Renzi, Attilia Renzi, Providence College and Philip Renzi, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Cullen & Dykman (Peter J. Mastaglio, of counsel), Garden City, NY, for plaintiff.
Mailman & Gigante (Gary Mailman, of counsel), New York City, for defendants.
By memorandum and order dated February 26, 1996, the court awarded plaintiff $ 621,000 with interest from the date of commencement of the action. Plaintiff has asked the court to award attorneys' fees as well. Defendant Providence College (Providence) opposes plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees. Providence also asks the court to amend the judgment with respect to the date from which Providence owes interest, and to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal without requiring Providence to file a supersedeas bond.
The guaranty upon which plaintiff brought this action contains a limit of $ 621,000. Plaintiff says that the court's decision to award interest reflects an understanding that the $ 621,000 limit does not preclude recovery beyond that amount. But the court awarded additional interest based on N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. & R. § 5001 not on the provision of the guaranty covering interest and attorneys' fees. The guaranty is explicit in limiting liability to $ 621,000, and there is no independent statutory basis for attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's request is denied.
Providence interprets the courts ruling that plaintiff may have interest "from the date of commencement of the action" to mean from the date on which it filed its amended complaint asserting a claim on the Byron guaranty. But N.Y.Civ.Prac.L. & R. § 5001(b) provides that "interest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed," not from the filing of the claim.
Providence, adverting to its financial health, also asks the court to exercise its discretion to stay enforcement of the judgment without requiring it to file a supersedeas bond. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) allows an appellant to obtain a stay pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. But the court may waive the bond requirement. See 7 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 62.06 (2d ed. 1995).
Factors in addition to the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ortiz v. New York City Housing Authority
...the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, district courts have discretion to waive this requirement. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. A & R Constr., Inc., 921 F.Supp. 153, 154 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (citing 7 James William Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 62.06 (2d ed.1995)); see also Exxon Corp. v. E......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 80-CV-930.
...[nor] the amount of time required to collect on a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal[,]" see Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. A & R Construction, Inc., 921 F.Supp. 153, 155 (citations omitted), somehow justify requiring the State to post a supersedeas Finally, the court cannot ......
-
Exxon Corp. v. Esso Worker's Union, Inc.
...interests pending appeal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). Although the posting of a bond is the "usual rule," F.D.I.C. v. A & R Constr., Inc., 921 F.Supp. 153, 155 (E.D.N.Y.1996), the court need not require a bond if it would be unnecessary to protect the interests of the appellee. The central purp......
-
Hines v. City of Albany, 1:06-CV-1517 (GTS/RFT)
...is ordinarily required under Rule 62, district courts have discretion to waive this requirement. See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. A & R Constr., Inc., 921 F. Supp. 153, 154 (E.D.N.Y.1996). The district court may exercise its discretion to grant a stay of judgment with no supersedeas bond o......