Majority
The evidence at trial demonstrated that the parties’ agreement, as modified, unambiguously provided that plaintiff would be entitled to compensation in the circumstances proven here, i.e., where plaintiffs negotiations with the City resulted in a downward adjustment to a water bill issued to defendant The Benjamin Shapiro Realty Company, L.P.
However, we find that the provision in the agreement providing that defendant would be liable for “collection costs” did not include liability for attorney’s fees (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487 , 492). In addition, the provision indicating that interest would “accrue” at a rate of 1.5% per month did not constitute an agreement to pay compounded interest (see, Rourke v Thomas Assocs., 216 AD2d 717 , 718, appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 837 ).
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.
Cases cited
- Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc. 74 NY2d 487 at 492 p. 404
- Rourke v. Fred H. Thomas Associates 216 AD2d 717 at 718 p. 404