Opinion
Index No. TS - 300060-19
03-18-2022
Ruben HENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN UNITED TRANSPORTATION INC. and Eric Diaz-Fernandez, Defendants.
Recitation as required by CPLR § 2219[a] of the papers considered in the review of plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR § 5003 for an order enforcing a judgment and compelling defendants to pay additional interest:
Papers Numbered
Plaintiff's Motion dated 10/22/2021 1
Defendants’ Affirmation in Opposition 2
Plaintiff's Reply Affirmation
For the reasons below, plaintiff's motion is DENIED .
Plaintiff commenced the instant action in Bronx Supreme Court for personal injuries relating to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 5, 2015. On March 27, 2017, plaintiff was awarded summary judgment on liability. The action was then transferred to Bronx Civil Court pursuant to a CPLR § 325[d] Order of the Administrative Judge. On August 11, 2021, the Hon. Marissa Soto presided over a Summary Jury Trial in this proceeding. On October 22, 2021 plaintiff filed the motion herein.
Discussion
On June 30, 2021, the parties entered into a Summary Jury Trial ("SJT") Stipulation wherein "this matter is transferred to the summary trial program for a trial in accordance with the procedures thereof ..." and agreed to high/low parameters of $95,000/$10,000. The "Summary Jury Trial Process Bronx Rules and Procedures" as amended September 23, 2008, explicitly states, in relevant part, as follows:
"3. No Right to Appeal ... Following the determination, the parties shall not enter judgment but shall instead exchange General Releases and Stipulation of Discontinuance." .
The Court notes the Bronx rules and procedures for summary jury trials can be found in the Office of Court Administration's website: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/12jd/bronx/civil/pdfs/THE% 20SUMMARY% 20JURY% 20TRIAL% 20PROCESS.pdf
Within said stipulation for a summary jury trial, the parties agreed to high/low parameters of $95,000 / $10,000. After jury deliberations, the jury's findings were to plaintiff in the amount of $50,000, which was within the agreed high-low parameters. After completion of the Summary Jury Trial and the jury's findings, Plaintiff was seeking a judgment against defendant for $50,000 based on the jury's findings, in addition to interest allegedly accruing from the date of entry of the summary judgment order issued back in March 27, 2017 to August 11, 2021 (the date of the SJT).
In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that he is entitled to interest pursuant to CPLR § 5002, because the jury's findings of $50,000 was within the agreed high-low parameters, and states that the jury determination rendered was a "verdict" and not a "settlement." Thus, it is plaintiff's position that they are entitled to the payment of the "verdict" award plus the accrued statutory interest.
In opposition, defendant first points out that the "pre-judgment interest sought by plaintiff is premised on what moving counsel concludes to be the final binding determination of the issue of liability." However, defendant argues that the 2017 summary judgment decision was never properly served and cannot be the basis of an award of interest. It is plaintiff's position that the decision is not a final and binding decision. Furthermore, defendant argues that plaintiff is not entitled to interest pursuant to CPLR § 5002 as the SJT agreement does not provide for the award of interest or costs.
The crux of the matter is whether a plaintiff who has agreed to a summary jury trial ("SJT") is entitled to interest pursuant to CPLR § 5002 where the jury's findings are an amount that is within the agreed SJT parameters. The Court notes that during the SJT, the Jury does not know of the existence of the high-low parameters entered into between the parties.
CPLR § 5002 states, in relevant part, as follows: "[i]nterest shall be recovered upon the total sum awarded, including interest to verdict, report or decision, in any action, from the date the verdict was rendered or the report or decision was made to the date of entry of final judgment"
New York has "long favored and encouraged the fashioning of stipulations as a means of expediting and simplifying the resolution of disputes" Mitchell v New York Hosp., 61 NY2d 208, 214 [1984] ). "A stipulation between parties and/or their attorneys in an action is a binding contract Thus, when parties agree to submit an action into the SJT Program, they are bound by the stipulation executed in furtherance thereof" Acosta v Xinna Lu , 65 Misc 3d 1224(A) [Bronx Civ Ct 2019] citing to Chae Shin Oh v Jeannot , 160 AD3d 701, 702 [2d Dept 2018]. Also, as stated above, when parties enter into a SJT agreement, the parties are bound by the "Summary Jury Trial Process Bronx Rules and Procedures".
Plaintiff refers to Cuhna v Shapiro , 42 AD3d 95 (2d Dept. 2007), wherein the parties entered into a "high-low" agreement. After appeal of the trial Court's decision as to the issuance of a judgment, the Second Department in Cuhna affirmed the trial court's decision as it found that the high-low agreement constituted a settlement and that CPLR 5003-a applied. Therefore in Cuhna plaintiff was required to tender a general release and a stipulation of discontinuance to the defendants and, if no payment was made, then wait 21 days before a judgment could be properly filed. In his moving papers, plaintiff argues that in order for Cuhna to apply, the jury's award must be either below or above the agreed parameters in order to render the high-low agreement a settlement.
In the instant matter, the jury award was within the agreed parameters pursuant to the SJT Stipulation. Upon a review of the instant matter and the Cunha case, the Court agrees that Cuhna dealt with an instance where the jury award was above the agreed parameters. Nonetheless, plaintiff fails to address the case of Vargas v Marquis , 65 AD3d 1332 (2d Dept. 2009), which involved a situation wherein the jury award was within the agreed high-low parameters.
In the Vargas case, plaintiff had been awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability. The parties then entered into a high-low stipulation on the record in which the parameters were $275,000/$25,000. The jury made a finding of $135,000 for plaintiff's damages, which was within the agreed parameters. Plaintiff then presented a judgment to the Clerk of the Court in the sum of the jury's findings of $135,000 plus pre-verdict interest, costs and disbursements. Defendants filed a motion opposing entry of the judgment arguing that pursuant to the terms of the high-low stipulation, the plaintiff waived a judgment and was obligated to provide a stipulation of discontinuance and general release. The trial court in Vargas denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment. On appeal, the Second Department reversed the trial court's decision. The Second Department held that pursuant to the terms of the high-low agreement, the plaintiff "was obligated to furnish a stipulation of discontinuance and general release- not to submit a judgment containing a substantial amount of interest and costs- ‘regardless of what the verdict is’ and for ‘whatever [the] number was.’ "
Upon a review of the motion papers and relevant case law, the Court finds that Vargas v Marquis, supra, is applicable and almost identical to the instant matter. Like in Vargas , upon agreeing to a summary jury trial which included a high-low provision, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff herein and issued an award in the amount of $50,000, which was within the agreed parameters of $95,000 / $10,000. In accordance with Vargas , this Court finds that the SJT stipulation constitutes a settlement between the parties, which remains binding even when the jury's findings are within the agreed parameters. Therefore, CPLR § 5002 is inapplicable in the instant matter.
This Court finds that the CPLR provision applicable herein is CPLR § 5003-a as the SJT stipulation constitutes a settlement between the parties
CPLR § 5003-a : (a) When an action to recover damages has been settled, any settling defendant, except those defendants to whom subdivisions (b) and (c) of this section apply, shall pay all sums due to any settling plaintiff within twenty-one days of tender, by the settling plaintiff to the settling defendant, of a duly executed release and a stipulation discontinuing action executed on behalf of the settling plaintiff.
However, CPLR § 5003-a does not entitle plaintiff to a pre-verdict interest. The only instance in which a plaintiff is entitled to interest pursuant to CPLR § 5003-a is when a defendant fails to make prompt payment pursuant to the SJT stipulation (i.e. within 21 days of receipt of the general release and stipulation of discontinuance). Here, plaintiff did send defendant a general release and stipulation of settlement, however, the general release inappropriately included pre-verdict interest in the amount to be paid and plaintiff thereafter filed the instant motion when defendant did not pay the sum plaintiff was submitting to defendant that included "pre-verdict" interest.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion is DENIED in its entirety; and
ORDERED, that plaintiff is to provide defendant with a general release and stipulation of discontinuance pursuant to CPLR § 5003-a forthwith based on the Summary Jury Trial Stipulation of June 30, 2021, and the amount of the jury's findings of August 11, 2021.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.