Arcamone-Makinano v Britton Prop., Inc.
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 18, 2018
Supreme Court, Queens County
Amelia Arcamone-Makinano, Plaintiffs,
against
Britton Property, Inc., et al., Defendants.
32984/2009
For Plaintiffs: Pro se
For Defendants: Kushnick Pallaci PLLC, by Vincent T. Pallaci and Jeffrey A. Lhuillier, Esqs., 630 Johnson Avenue, Bohemia, New York 11716
Salvatore J. Modica, J.
Papers Numbered
Motion by defendants 1-4
Notice of cross motion and underlying affidavit 7-12
Defendant's Reply to cross motion 13-18
Reply by plaintiff 19-23
The defendants, Briton Properties, Inc., and Tsan Chih Sou, move under CPLR 2026 for an Order directing the County Clerk and/or the New York City Department of Finance to release $814,692.40 to the plaintiffs, Amelia Arcamone-Makinano and Bonifacio Aguja Makinano, from the undertaking of $1,199,454.04 deposited by the defendants on April 24, 2017, and to refund the remaining balance thereon, including any interest, to the defendants that has accrued on that undertaking. That motion was made returnable before this Court on July 9, 2018. The plaintiff, who appears pro se, then responded to the instant motion by filing a cross motion in which she contends that the modified judgment entered on June 11, 2018 is incorrect as it fails to contain an award for post-judgment interest. See CPLR 5003.
The Court agrees with the plaintiff and modifies the judgment filed and recorded on June [*2]11, 2018 solely to include postjudgment interest on the total award of $575,000.00 ($325,000.00 for compensatory damages and $250,00.00 for punitive damages), at the statutory rate of 9%, to be calculated from January 29, 2018, the date judgment was entered in this case, to July 9, 2018, the date that the defendant sought to have the funds held by the New York City Department of Finance released. The following constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
This case has been pending for over 9 years. The Appellate Division, Second Department has twice entered orders in this case. See Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc., 117 AD3d 889 (2nd Dept. 2014); see also Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Prop., Inc., 156 AD3d 669 (2nd Dept. 2017). Following the Second Department's decision in December, 2017, this Court entered judgment pursuant to a decision and order, dated May 10, 2018, and entered on May 18, 2018. That judgment was entered against the defendant in an amount totaling $814,692.40. Although that judgment provided for prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001, it did not include an award of postjudgment interest on the $325,000.00 compensatory damage award or on the $250,000.00 punitive damage award set by the Appellate Division in 2017. See CPLR 5003.
After reviewing that decision and the motion papers of the parties, as well as the prior decision and order of this Court, dated May 10, 2018 and entered May 31, 2018, a conference was arranged with both sides in chambers on October 15, 2018. At that conference, the defendant conceded to this Court that postjudgment interest should have been awarded from January 29, 2018, the date judgment was entered in this case. The defendant contended that the judgment provided for such interest. The Court, however, does not agree with that argument. Instead, the Court holds that the Clerk, never computed an award of postjudgment interest on the combined award of $575,000.00. The error was not the Clerk's fault. The decision and order of this Court, dated May 10, 2018 and entered May 31, 2018, apparently caused the confusion.
In any event, at that conference, the defendant requested that postjudgment interest be tolled until July 9, 2018, when the defendant's motion to have the New York City Department of Finance release $814,692.40 to the plaintiff was returnable before this Court. The plaintiff, who has been representing herself, requested that this Court issue an order to that effect.
Initially, the Court recognizes that, as a general rule, postjudgment interest, as required by CPLR 5003, keeps running until payment is made on the filed judgment. See Matra Building v Kucker 2 AD3rd 732 (2nd Dept. 2003). Nevertheless, in a rare case, "[e]quitable considerations may result in an estoppel which can toll the accrual of interest." Id; see also ERHAL Holding Corp. v. Rusin, 252 AD2d 473 (2nd Dept., 1998). In this case, the funds were, by court order, placed in the possession of the Department of Finance; that agency requires a court order before such funds can be released. The defendant, not the plaintiff, attempted to release a significant portion of those funds on July 9, 2018.
Finally, the release of the funds has been delayed as a result of the plaintiff's cross motion seeking to correct the judgment and include postjudgment interest. This application could and should have been made much earlier by the plaintiff. In any event, the Court does not find that the defendant has been at all responsible for the delay. In fact, it was the defendants' application that sought to release to both sides the funds held by the Department of Finance. After weighing the relevant factors in this case, the Court finds that, on balance, principles of equity favor tolling the accrual of interest as of July 9, 2018. The order tolling interest will, hopefully, finally bring an end to this litigation and will ensure that the plaintiff is promptly paid in this case.
At this point in time, the Clerk of the Court has calculated prejudgment interest on the award of $325,000.00 in compensatory damages. That amount, when added to the award of $250,000.00 in punitive damages, as well as the costs in this case, brings the award up to the sum of $814,692.40, which, of course, does not include postjudgment interest. As noted, however, an award of postjudgment interest must be calculated and entered by the Clerk of the Court.
The Court directs the Clerk to calculate postjudgment interest on the combined award of $575,000.00 in both compensatory damages and punitive damages. The plaintiff is then directed to enter judgment in that amount within 60 days of the entry of this decision order. It behooves the plaintiff to hire an attorney for the purpose of preparing that judgment.
At this point in time, the modified judgment to be submitted by the plaintiff is only to include the Clerk's calculation of postjudgment interest on the combined award of $575,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the judgment previously entered in this case on June 11, 2018 is modified solely to include an award of postjudgment interest on the total award of $575,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages, as set by the Appellate Division in 2017; and it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff is directed to submit an order to this Court in accordance with this decision and order; and it is further
ORDERED that, once the Court signs such order, the Clerk of this Court is to calculate interest at the statutory rate of 9% on the total award of $575,000.00 ($325,000.00 compensatory damage award as well as the $250,000.00 punitive damage award); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is to calculate postjudgment interest from January 29, 2018 to July 9, 2018; and it is further
ORDERED that, once the Clerk calculates postjudgment interest in this case, an order in accordance with this decision must be presented to this Court within 60 days of the filing of that modified judgment. Specifically, such order must direct the New York City Department of Finance to release immediately the funds to the plaintiff in an amount that satisfies the judgment of $814,692.40 that has already been entered in this case, as well as the modified judgment containing the postjudgment interest that will be calculated by the Clerk of this Court on the award of $575,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. Such order must also direct that the New York City Department of Finance release to the defendant minus the remaining balance if any, to the defendant, together with any interest that has accrued on such deposited funds.
The foregoing constitutes the decision, order, and opinion of the Court.
Dated: October 18, 2018
Jamaica, New York
Honorable Salvatore J. Modica
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
