Washington Street Urban Renewal Project in Borough of Manhattan, In re
| Decision Date | 13 February 1974 |
| Citation | 309 N.E.2d 135,353 N.Y.S.2d 736,33 N.Y.2d 970 |
| Parties | , 309 N.E.2d 135 In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for the WASHINGTON STREET URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, IN the BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN. Roteeco Corporation et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Albert A. Sloane, New York City, for appellants.
Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner and Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division, 41 A.D.2d 904, 343 N.Y.S.2d 310 should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative. The partial decree filed on December 20, 1968 expressly denied interest to fixture claimants, including the appellant Robert I. Cochran & Co., 'other than at the rate of 4% As provided by Section 3(a) of the General Municipal Law'. Nor did the earlier partial decree applicable to the fee claimant, appellant Roteeco Corporation, reserve any right to interest at other than the then lawful 4% Statutory rate. Both partial decrees, from which claimants took no appeal, became final and the trial court had no jurisdiction to alter its decree in any matter of substance (Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N.Y. 323, 327, 122 N.E. 204; Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Bero Constr. Corp., 29 A.D.2d 627, 286 N.Y.S.2d 287; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 5019.04; cf. Matter of Huie (Furman), 20 N.Y.2d 568, 572, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642; Deeves v. Fabric Fire Hose Co., 19 A.D.2d 735, 242 N.Y.S.2d 955, affd. 14 N.Y.2d 633, 249 N.Y.S.2d 423, 198 N.E.2d 595; but see Feldman v. New York City Tr. Auth., 44 Misc.2d 35, 36, 252 N.Y.S.2d 878, main case reversed on other grounds 22 A.D.2d 872, 254 N.Y.S.2d 398, where the trial court amended its judgment to reduce the rate of interest allowed; see, also, 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, op. cit., par. 5019.03).
STEVENS, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...the vacating of the judgment or by an appeal"]). The Court of Appeals characterized its holding in Matter of City of New York (Roteeco Corp.), 33 N.Y.2d 970, 353 N.Y.S.2d 736, 309 N.E.2d 135, as standing for the proposition that "where rate of interest is litigated and determined by a Judge......
-
In re B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C.
... ... BZ's motion was ... not that of renewal or reargument ( see CPLR 2221[d], ... ...
-
Adventurers Whitestone Corp. v. City of New York
...in a number of cases (Matter of City of New York 58 N.Y.2d 532, 462 N.Y.S.2d 619, 449 N.E.2d 399, supra; Matter of City of New York 33 N.Y.2d 970, 353 N.Y.S.2d 736, 309 N.E.2d 135; Matter of City of New York 27 N.Y.2d 518, 312 N.Y.S.2d 995, 261 N.E.2d 106, affg. 32 A.D.2d 530, 299 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Pjetri v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
...doubt in this regard, it ought to be dispelled by the determination of the Court of Appeals in Matter of the City of New York v. Roteeco Corp., 33 N.Y.2d 970, 353 N.Y.S.2d 736, 309 N.E.2d 135. There, the Roteeco Corporation, a claimant in condemnation proceedings, was awarded interest in a ......