On June 22, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Atalaya Asset Income Fund II, L.P. v. 219 Sagg Main, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 04000, holding that an award of interest in an equitable action is at the court’s discretion, explaining:
Although the Supreme Court should not have relied on the contract clause in the loan documents at issue to deny the application of the defendants 219 Sagg Main, LLC, BCR Realty Investments II, LLC, Sagg Main Inv, LLC, Benjamin Ringel, and Yael Ringel (hereinafter collectively the defendants) to toll or reduce the default rate of interest on the mortgage loan at issue on the basis that that provision provided that the defendants waived any type of monetary remedy for delays caused by the plaintiff, we affirm on different grounds. In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party. This is true notwithstanding the language in the loan documents at issue wherein the defendants agreed that their sole remedies for unreasonable delays caused by the plaintiff would be limited to commencing an action seeking injunctive relief or declaratory judgment. Here, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff’s actions in the litigation warranted the imposition of sanctions against it in the form of limiting the interest awarded to it or otherwise, or that any delays in the litigation were solely attributable to wrongdoing by the plaintiff.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).