TRIADOU SPV v. CF 135 FLAT LLC (2019)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about March 30, 2018, which declared that defendants owed post-judgment interest on the four separate judgments entered against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants' deposit of full payment on the judgments entered against it to a court monitored escrow account (the Monitorship Account) was not unconditional, such that it did not stop the accrual of post-judgment interest (see Cohen v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 262 A.D.2d 189, 191, 693 N.Y.S.2d 529 [1st Dept. 1999] [absent an unconditional tender, defendant would owe plaintiff interest from the date of entry of the original judgment]; see also Garigen v. Morrow, 303 A.D.2d 956, 757 N.Y.S.2d 422 [4th Dept. 2003] ).  Defendants' payment to the Monitorship Account was conditioned on plaintiff relinquishing its right to pursue two additional claims for breach of contract and forego its right to post-judgment interest on those claims (see Concert Radio, Inc. v. GAF Corp., 159 A.D.2d 258, 552 N.Y.S.2d 252 [1st Dept. 1990] ).

Contrary to defendants' arguments, the payment to the Monitorship Account was not a “deposit to the court,” as it was not “pursuant to an order of the court, made upon motion” (CPLR § 5021[a][3] ).  Further, imposing post-judgment interest would not be inequitable because defendants intentionally defied court orders requiring remittance of the amounts it owed and delayed collection without proper justification.

We have considered the defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.