Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Nori Mizuno, respondent-appellant, v. Fischoff & Associates, et al., appellants-respondents.
Argued-January 14, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), entered March 25, 2010, as, upon a decision made after a nonjury trial, determined that the plaintiff is entitled to 100% of the lost equity in the subject property and is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $318,227.53, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as awarded prejudgment interest only from May 1, 2003.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that judgment is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new calculation and award of prejudgment interest in accordance herewith, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
As a result of the defendants' legal malpractice, which is not contested on this appeal, the plaintiff's house was sold at a foreclosure sale on April 4, 2002. The plaintiff and his wife held title to the subject property as tenants by the entirety and were, thus, each seized of the whole property (see Kahn v. Kahn, 43 N.Y.2d 203, 206-207; Stelz v. Shreck, 128 N.Y. 263, 266; Paterno v. CYC, LLC, 46 AD3d 788, 789). Since the plaintiff owned the entire property, the Supreme Court properly held that he was entitled to recover 100% of the lost equity in the property.
We agree with the plaintiff's contention that May 1, 2003, is not a “reasonable intermediate date” from which to calculate prejudgment interest (CPLR 5001[b] ). Instead, we find that April 4, 2002, is a “single reasonable intermediate date” (CPLR 5001[b] ) from which to calculate prejudgment interest on the damages awarded in this case. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new calculation and award of prejudgment interest, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-04365 (Index No. 15900 /03)
Decided: March 08, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)