Opinion
March 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Inasmuch as plaintiff's delay in settling the judgment was brief and its excuse reasonable, it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to excuse the noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 202.48 (cf., Garcia v. New York City Tr. Auth., 193 A.D.2d 414). That the rate of interest was not specifically set forth in the note does not render it any the less an instrument for the payment of money only (Schwartz v. Turner Holdings, 139 A.D.2d 458, 459, appeal dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 949). Nor should summary judgment have been withheld on the ground that plaintiff's papers did not contain proof of the applicable prime rate of interest, which governed the interest rate on the note, since such prime rate could be readily ascertained. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.