Matter of West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area Phase 2
2008 NY Slip Op 03015 [50 AD3d 695]
April 1, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008


In the Matter of West Bushwick Urban Renewal Area Phase 2. JenJen Garment, Inc., Appellant; Maria Cho, Respondent, et al.,Defendant.

[*1]Yuen Roccanova Seltzer & Sverd, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Po W. Yuen and StevenSeltzer of counsel), and Yuen & Yuen, New York, N.Y., for appellant (one brief filed).

Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Houghton ofcounsel), for respondent.

In an eminent domain proceeding, the mortgagee Jen Jen Garment, Inc., appeals (1), aslimited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.),dated August 24, 2006, as granted Maria Cho's cross motion for a determination that the totalamount she owed to it, inclusive of interest and penalties, was $292,438.43, representing simpleinterest upon the outstanding balance of her mortgage held by it as of February 28, 2005, anddenied that portion of its motion which, in effect, was for a determination that the total amountCho owed to it was $468,458.61, representing compound interest upon the same outstandingmortgage balance, and (2) from an order of the same court dated November 8, 2006.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 8, 2006 is dismissed as abandoned;and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 24, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it isfurther,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.[*2]

As the appellant correctly concedes in its brief, themortgage agreement and note at issue did not include a provision expressly authorizing it tocompound interest. Under such circumstances, compound interest is not recoverable (see Gutman v Savas, 17 AD3d278, 279 [2005]; DeFalco v Do, 267 AD2d 193 [1999]; Rourke v ThomasAssoc., 216 AD2d 717, 718 [1995]).

The appellant has not raised any arguments regarding its appeal from the order datedNovember 8, 2006. Thus, its appeal from that order must be dismissed as abandoned (seeTobacco v North Babylon Volunteer Fire Dept., 276 AD2d 551, 552 [2000]; Matter ofAnonymous v Grievance Comm. for Second & Eleventh Jud. Dists. of State of N.Y., 136AD2d 344, 349 [1988]).

The appellant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Fisher, J.P., Miller,McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.