From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mizuno v. Fischoff & Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2011
82 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-04365.

March 8, 2011.

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.

Catalano Gallardo Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Matthew K. Flanagan of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Joel J. Ziegler, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

Before: Angiolillo, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ.


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 plaintiffs 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 NY2d 203, 206-207; Stelz v Shreck, 128 NY 263, 266 [1891]; 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 plaintiffs 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.

[Prior Case History: 26 Misc 3d 1211(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50064(U).]


Summaries of

Mizuno v. Fischoff & Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2011
82 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Mizuno v. Fischoff & Associates

Case Details

Full title:NORI MIZUNO, Respondent-Appellant, v. FISCHOFF ASSOCIATES et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1811
918 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Marrero

Defendants are correct that the commencement of an action against a deceased person is a nullity (see Federal…

Mizuno v. Nunberg

The plaintiff then commenced a legal malpractice action (hereinafter the first legal malpractice action)…