BANKERS TRUST COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA v. BRUNSON (2007)

In a consolidated action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joan Brunson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated December 23, 2005, which denied her motion to recalculate postjudgment interest on a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered February 25, 1998, and to award her damages for unlawful eviction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendant Joan Brunson (hereinafter the defendant) to recalculate postjudgment interest on the judgment of foreclosure and sale.   Postjudgment interest is awarded as a penalty for the delayed payment of a judgment (cf. ERHAL Holding Corp. v. Rusin, 252 A.D.2d 473, 474, 675 N.Y.S.2d 138).   Barring any inequitable or dilatory conduct on the part of the judgment creditor, a money judgment bears interest from the date of its entry and continues to accrue at the statutory rate until the judgment is satisfied (see CPLR 5003;  Matter of Matra Bldg. Corp. v. Kucker, 19 A.D.3d 496, 796 N.Y.S.2d 709;  Greenberg v. Greenberg, 269 A.D.2d 354, 355, 702 N.Y.S.2d 632;  Purpura v. Purpura, 261 A.D.2d 595, 597, 691 N.Y.S.2d 68).   Here, there is no evidence that the plaintiff engaged in any inequitable or dilatory conduct which would preclude its entitlement to interest earned on the unpaid judgment (see Greenberg v. Greenberg, supra;  Purpura v. Purpura, supra;  cf. ERHAL Holding Corp. v. Rusin, supra;  Juracka v. Ferrara, 120 A.D.2d 822, 822-824, 501 N.Y.S.2d 936).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see RPAPL 853;  Gold v. Schuster, 264 A.D.2d 547, 549, 694 N.Y.S.2d 646;  Kolomensky v. Wiener, 135 A.D.2d 505, 507, 522 N.Y.S.2d 156).