Eighteen Holding Corp. v. Drizin

268 A.D.2d 371, 701 N.Y.S.2d 427 (1st Dep't 2000) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department · January 25, 2000

Summary

The court affirmed a summary judgment awarding a partner $264,473.92 as its share of proceeds from the disposition of mortgages. It held that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that prejudgment interest was properly awarded under CPLR 5001 because the action involved a specified share of funds wrongfully withheld.

Holdings

  1. Defendants' unsubstantiated allegations and submissions lacking sufficient evidentiary proof did not raise an issue of fact; summary judgment for plaintiff was properly granted.
  2. Under the partnership agreement, plaintiff was entitled to a share of the proceeds from disposition of the mortgages proportionate to its partnership interest, not merely reimbursement of its contribution.
  3. An accounting was not required because the action was at law, the proceeds arose from a discrete transaction, the funds were held in one account, and plaintiff's specific share was ascertainable.
  4. The award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of nine percent was proper under CPLR 5001.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendants submitted sufficient evidentiary proof to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
  2. Whether the partnership agreement entitled plaintiff to a proportionate share of the mortgage-disposition proceeds rather than merely reimbursement of its contribution.
  3. Whether plaintiff's action required an accounting of the partnership before recovery could be awarded.
  4. Whether prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of nine percent was properly awarded under CPLR 5001.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (4)

  • Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557(followed)
  • Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107, 115(followed)
  • Kriegsman v. Kraus, Ostreicher & Co., 126 A.D.2d 489, 490(followed)
  • Aurnou v. Greenspan, 161 A.D.2d 438, 439-440, amended on other grounds, 164 A.D.2d 794(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…