Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to award prejudgment interest. Plaintiff, while conceding that prejudgment interest is discretionary, argues that it is mandated because courts "routinely" award it for the loss of use of property pursuant to CPLR 5001. She reasons that the failure to grant prejudgment interest in this case is therefore an abuse of discretion.
This argument is both circular and without merit. The equitable distribution...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
