Bradley v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2022
• Docket Number: 2020-01597,Index 7291/13
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 00165
• Parties: Stephen Bradley, appellant, v. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York, respondent, et al., defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 00165

Stephen Bradley, appellant, v. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York, respondent, et al., defendant.

No. 2020-01597, Index No. 7291/13

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

January 12, 2022

Stenger, Diamond & Glass, LLP, Wappingers Falls, NY (Kenneth M. Stenger of counsel), for appellant.

Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, NY (Robert D. Meade of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX WILLIAM G. FORD DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), dated December 20, 2019. The order denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered June 12, 2019, as awarded to the plaintiff prejudgment interest only at the rate of 3% percent per annum, and pursuant to CPLR 5019 and 2001 to resettle that judgment to provide prejudgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5019 and 2001 to resettle the judgment to provide prejudgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum is dismissed; and it is further, ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further, ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

No appeal lies from an order denying a motion to resettle a substantive or decretal portion of a judgment (see Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang, 71 A.D.3d 1131; Hoeflschweiger v Decovnick, 287 A.D.2d 694; Celauro v Celauro, 286 A.D.2d 471; EQK Green Acres v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 248 A.D.2d 667). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5019 and 2001 to resettle the judgment to provide prejudgment interest at a rate of 9% per annum.

The plaintiff failed to set forth any ground for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 68; Matter of Arici v Scharf, 195 A.D.3d 925, 926).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., concur.