Margo Properties, Inc. v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 29 March 1984 |
| Parties | MARGO PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John C. NELSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
G. Weisz, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
A.S. Hardin, Jr., New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSS, KASSAL and ALEXANDER, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 7, 1983, awarding specific performance to plaintiff-seller under a contract for the sale of realty and dismissing defendant's counterclaims for return of a down payment, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest on the $1.9 million unpaid cash portion of the purchase price at the statutory rate provided in CPLR 5004, from February 19, 1982 to June 7, 1983, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the findings by the trial court that plaintiff acted expeditiously and within a reasonable time in effecting the removal of the tenant, Premero Construction Corp., a condition precedent to the contract. However, under the circumstances of this case, we disagree with the court's refusal to award prejudgment interest. While the grant of interest in an equitable action is a matter of discretion (see Bosco v. Alicino, 37 A.D.2d 552, 322 N.Y.S.2d 414; Shubert v. Lawrence, 27 A.D.2d 292, 297-298, 278 N.Y.S.2d 537), we are in agreement that the circumstances of this case warranted that prejudgment interest be awarded. The refusal of defendant to proceed to closing in February 1982 required the seller to retain the property in a non-income producing state, most of the tenants having been removed in contemplation of the closing. As a result of the default, the seller received neither the income nor the $1.9 million portion of the purchase price which was to have been paid at closing. Under the circumstances, prejudgment interest on the unpaid cash balance should have been awarded to fully compensate the seller for the loss.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freidus v. Eisenberg
...Check-Mate Inds. v. Say Assoc., 104 A.D.2d 392, 478 N.Y.S.2d 924; Mott v. Devine, 102 A.D.2d 946, 477 N.Y.S.2d 811; Margo Props. v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 1029, 473 N.Y.S.2d 822). Such an award does not arise as legal damages from the breach of the contract; rather, it is more in the nature of a......
-
Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda
...claim is discretionary. Scheller v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 630 N.Y.S.2d 62, 64 (1st Dep't 1995); Margo Properties, Inc. v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 1029, 473 N.Y.S.2d 822, 823 (1st Dep't 1984). Unable to explain why its $1.7 million award should be considered a recovery on its contract claim in light o......
-
4200 Ave. K Realty Corp. v. 4200 Realty Co.
...appropriate adjustments may be made to both the purchaser and seller upon the granting of specific performance (see, Margo Props. v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 1029, 473 N.Y.S.2d 822; Cross Props. v. Brook Realty Co., 76 A.D.2d 445, 430 N.Y.S.2d 820; Cross Props. v. Brook Realty Co., 113 A.D.2d 863,......
-
Universe Antiques Inc. v. Gralla
...; 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 ...