United States District Court, S.D. New York
July 1, 2004.
ZIM-AMERICAN ISRAELI SHIPPING CO., INC., Plaintiff,
BEACON INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
In this admiralty case, the defendant previously advised the
Court that it does not wish to defend itself at a trial and
prefers that judgment be entered for the freight that is the
subject matter of this action. The parties were directed to
confer and to submit a proposed judgment to the Court for its
review and endorsement. A controversy has emerged since the
plaintiff believes that the judgment should provide for an award
of pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, and the
In this circuit, pre-judgment interest, in an admiralty case,
is left to the trial court's discretion. See Central Hudson
Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A., 56 F.3d 359,
372 (2d Cir. 1995). However, the Court is aware that pre-judgment
interest is typically allowed in such cases unless there are
exceptional circumstances that militate against awarding it.
See Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1125
(E.D.N.Y. 1985). The court in Larsen, relying on language found
in United States v. Peavey Barge Line, 748 F.2d 395, 402
(7th Cir. 1984), explained that exceptional circumstances that warrant
barring an award of pre-judgment interest exist where the party
seeking pre-judgment interest "has unreasonably delayed in
prosecuting its claim, has made a bad faith estimate of its
damages which precludes settlement or has not sustained any
actual damages." Id.
The Court finds that the plaintiff in the instant action has
not engaged in any of the conduct noted above that would support
precluding an award of pre-judgment interest to it. Accordingly,
the plaintiff is awarded pre-judgment interest on its claim
against the defendant for unpaid freight. The interest shall be
calculated at a rate of nine per centum per annum. See New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5004.
28 U.S.C. § 1961, in its most pertinent part, informs that
"interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case
recovered in a district court." 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Therefore,
by the express language of the statute, the plaintiff is entitled
to post-judgment interest.
That statute provides a procedure for calculating post-judgment
interest. The statute explains that "[s]uch interest shall be
calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate
equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury
yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding  the date of
the judgment." Id. Furthermore, the statute directs that
interest be computed daily to the date of payment except in
certain circumstances that are not relevant to the case at bar.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b). Inasmuch as the Court finds no reason
to deviate from the procedure for calculating post-judgment
interest found at 28 U.S.C. § 1961, post-judgment interest in the
instant case shall be calculated in accordance with that statute. The parties shall confer and, thereafter, submit to the Court,
on or before July 6, 2004, for its review and endorsement, a
judgment that is consistent with the rulings noted above.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.