Arthur Beaudry, plaintiff in person. Guariglia & Mehlman for defendant.
awarded to the above named defendant" favors the view of the defendant herein, but that argument is overruled as the last-quoted clause is confined to
costs only. The clause covering
damages is not limited in any way. Those damages became due as soon as the attachment was vacated. The defendant herein further argues that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was made "many months after the action herein had been instituted and that such delay was not in any way caused by the defendant and that the plaintiff should not be permitted to benefit from its [
sic] own slowness and delay." That argument must also be overruled. There is no time limit for the making of a motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. If the defendant was so concerned about preventing the running of interest herein, it could have paid the amount of the bond into court as soon as this action was commenced (cf.
Tuzzeo v. American Bonding Co., 226 N.Y. 171, 179). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the clerk of the court, when entering judgment for the damages in the sum of $650, is directed to add interest thereon from July 2, 1948, the date when the warrant of attachment was vacated, to the date of entry of judgment.