Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

Decision Date28 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 242,Docket 32750.,242
Citation407 F.2d 385
PartiesCarmelo CANDIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. JOHN W. McGRATH CORP., Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Martin J. McHugh, New York City, (Joseph F. McGoldrick, and James M. Leonard, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Ezekiel Jasper, New York City, (Max D. Krongold, New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from the refusal of the District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant appellant Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.'s (hereinafter "Shipowner") motion for an order relieving it from a judgment on the ground that the judgment has been paid and directing the Clerk to mark the judgment satisfied. The only question involved on the appeal is post-judgment interest.

Plaintiff-appellee Carmelo Candiano, a carpenter, was injured in a shipboard accident. He sued Shipowner alleging that his injuries were caused by Shipowner's negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Shipowner asserted a third party claim against Candiano's employer, John W. McGrath Corporation (hereinafter "Stevedore"). Shipowner alleged that Stevedore had breached its warranty of workmanlike service and accordingly should indemnify it for any judgment it might have to pay to Candiano, including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The trial court found that Candiano's injuries were proximately caused by the unseaworthiness, as that term has come to be used, of the vessel and awarded a judgment of $50,000 against Shipowner. 251 F.Supp. 654 (S.D.N.Y.1966). It also determined that Shipowner was entitled to a judgment in like amount, plus reasonable expenses of defending the action, against Stevedore. After entry of the judgment, Stevedore assumed the further defense of the action and its counsel was substituted for Shipowner's. It thereupon undertook an unsuccessful appeal to this Court, 382 F.2d 961 (2d Cir. 1967), and certiorari was denied in the Supreme Court. 390 U.S. 1027, 88 S.Ct. 1416, 20 L.Ed.2d 284 (1968). A rehearing was also subsequently denied. 386 F.2d 444.

As his employer, Stevedore had secured to Candiano the benefits of compensation pursuant to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The benefits received by Candiano as a result totalled $7,792.22, consisting of compensation payments of $5,645.57 and medical expenses of $2,146.65. Thus Stevedore had a lien against any recovery by Candiano in the amount of $7,792.22.

The sole issue is whether Candiano is entitled to post-judgment interest on that portion of his recovery subject to the lien. Although this problem must have occurred frequently before, it is a unique question as far as we are concerned because no cases in the maritime field have been cited to us bearing on this problem.

On April 22, 1968, after all the appeals had been exhausted, Candiano's counsel was paid the sum of $48,116.52. This consisted of $42,207.78 the $50,000 judgment less the lien for compensation payments of $7,792.22, plus interest thereon from the date judgment was entered and assessed costs. Candiano has, therefore, received the full interest on the net amount of the recovery and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 1555
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1984
    ...for the use or forbearance of money." Rosen v. United States, 288 F.2d 658, 660 (3d Cir.1961); See Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 407 F.2d 385, 387 (2d Cir.1969). Although interest will not be allowed if there was an obvious intent not to charge interest, 47 C.J.S., Interest & Usu......
  • Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 17 Abril 1979
    ...Jaglom v. Commissioner, 303 F.2d 847, 849 (2d Cir. 1962), or "compensation for the use of money." E. g., Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 407 F.2d 385, 387 (2d Cir. 1969); accord, Clark v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 417 F.2d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 1969); citing 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interest § ......
  • Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • 16 Marzo 2019
    ...have considered under 60(b)(5) a codefendants' motion to reduce a judgment by the amount paid in settlement); Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 407 F.2d 385 (2d Cir. 1969)(resolving under rule 60(b)(5) an argument to mark a judgment satisfied before the defendant paid post-judgment i......
  • Devex Corp. v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 20 Enero 1984
    ...to their share of the judgment. See Howell v. Marmpegaso Compania Naviera, 578 F.2d 86, 87 (5th Cir.1978); Candiano v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 407 F.2d 385, 387 (2d Cir.1969); Becker v. Huss Co., Inc., 43 N.Y.2d 527, 402 N.Y.S.2d 980, 986, 373 N.E.2d 1205, 1211 (N.Y.1978); Fireman's Fu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT