Prejudgment Interest Accruing From Date of Accident: What Will This Mean for Residents, Courts?
This article provides a broad overview of the application of prejudgment interest in New York as it pertains to personal injury matters and discusses what the imposition of a "date of accident" interest-accrual means for New York state residents and the New York court system.
April 13, 2023 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
When accepting a case involving a claim of bodily injury, defense attorneys will evaluate many factors in an attempt to quantify the expected exposure. A key, but often overlooked aspect of this evaluation is the impact of a statutorily imposed rate of interest applied as of the date of the judgment or verdict. To this end, a bill presently in the New York State Legislature may soon require an even more focused approach to case evaluations and implementation of defense strategy. This article provides a broad overview of the application of prejudgment interest in New York as it pertains to personal injury matters and discusses what the imposition of a "date of accident" interest-accrual means for New York state residents and the New York court system.
Background
As it pertains to personal injury matters, Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) Section 5004 sets forth that a statutory 9% per annum interest rate shall be applied as of the date of judgment or verdict. Although the New York Court of Appeals has reasoned that "the purpose of awarding interest is to make an aggrieved party whole," there is no question that a 9% interest rate may be perceived by some to be punitive. (Spodek v. Park Property Development Association, 733 NYS2d 674 [2001]).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRudy Giuliani Settles NY Enforcement Action With Ga. Poll Workers
Blake Lively’s Case Highlights How Pre-Litigation Subpoenas Can Expose Harassment in Hollywood
5 minute readDrake Sues UMG for Defamation Over Promotion of False Claims of Pedophilia
Oil Co. Alleges Plot to Drive Away Competition in NYC's Liquid Fuel Market
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250