Opinion
January 19, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
The real estate broker's affidavit submitted by plaintiff to establish the market value of the property was properly considered ( see, Broward Natl. Bank v. Starzec, 30 A.D.2d 603), and was sufficient to establish market value, without a hearing, where defendants did not present their own valuation as of the time of the sale, and their conclusory references to alleged appraisals rendered years, earlier and criticisms of the broker's methodology were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact ( see, Union Natl. Bank v. Johnson, 209 A.D.2d 775). Defendant's arguments with respect to the judgment of foreclosure, plaintiff's standing and unaccounted funds were either repetitive of issues previously determined, or, if new, were raised in a conclusory fashion. However, in equity, defendants should not be held responsible for the 228-day delay between April 29, 1996 and December 13, 1996 (the period between the scheduled closing date per the terms of sale and the delivery of the deed to plaintiff), caused by plaintiff's voluntary bankruptcy filing. The interest award is reduced by $43,862.40 ($741,198.64 amount of judgment x 9% = $182.76 interest per day), and the real estate tax award is reduced by $18,033 ($27,425.19 real estate taxes in calendar year 1996 x 240/365) for that period. Defendants are also entitled to a reduction in the judgment for the $16,375.65 in the hands of the receiver that was paid to plaintiff ( see, Golden City Commercial Bank v. Hawk Props. Corp., 240 A.D.2d 218). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.