New York Court of Appeals, 1996

Silvestri v. Smallberg

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 12, 1996 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur

671 N.E.2d 1267; 88 N.Y.2d 1004; 648 N.Y.S.2d 870; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 2722 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Bryant v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (N.Y. 1999)
Damiano v. Exide Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
Woods v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Blakesley v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2000)
Bermeo v. Yucel Atakent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Pay v. State (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1998)
Rodgers v. 72nd Street Associates (New York Supreme Court 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*1005 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The issue presented in this action to recover damages for medical malpractice is whether postjudgment interest accrues on awards for future damages when such awards are paid in a structured judgment pursuant to CPLR 50-A. We answer this question in the affirmative. The Court’s decision in Rohring v City of Niagara Falls (84 NY2d 60) is controlling here. The underlying rationale of Rohring — that a defendant is liable for the full amount of the judgment at the time of the verdict and that the structured payment provisions of CPLR articles 50-A and 50-B do not delay liability, but merely make payment of the judgment incremental (see, 84 NY2d, at 69-70) — applies with equal force to postjudgment interest under CPLR 5003 as it does to postverdict interest under CPLR 5002. The difference in statutory language between sections 5002 and 5003 does not require a contrary result.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.