Skip to main content
Is post-judgment interest in a no-fault case 24% per annum or 9% per annum?
interest

Is post-judgment interest in a no-fault case 24% per annum or 9% per annum?

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Learn whether post-judgment interest in New York no-fault cases is calculated at 24% annually (CPLR 5004) or 9% annually, based on recent appellate decisions.

This article is part of our ongoing interest coverage, with 12 published articles analyzing interest issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 51091(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)

“A money judgment bears interest from the date of its entry (see CPLR 5003), and, generally, the interest accrues until the judgment is paid (see Matter of Matra Bldg. Corp. v [*2]Kucker, 19 AD3d 496 ; Martin v Tafflock, 166 AD2d 635 ). “Postjudgment interest is awarded as a penalty for the delayed payment of a judgment” (ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin, 252 AD2d 473, 474 ). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, there is no evidence of actions or conduct by plaintiff which prevented defendant from paying the judgment (see ERHAL Holding Corp., 252 AD2d at 474_; cf. Danielowich v PBL Dev._, 292 AD2d 414 ). Since plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was not required to make a demand for the money (see e.g. Feldman v Brodsky, 12 AD2d 347, 351 ; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5003.01 ) and did not cause the delay in paying the judgment, the Civil Court erred in tolling the accrual of interest on the judgment. However, defendant demonstrated, through the submission of checks to plaintiff, which plaintiff had endorsed “without prejudice,” that defendant had partially paid the judgment and is, therefore, entitled to the entry of a partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $22,999.70 (see CPLR 5021 ). We note that, contrary to plaintiff’s position, postjudgment interest should be calculated pursuant to CPLR 5004 and not at the two percent per month rate provided for in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a)

This case appears to conflict with:  Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 32 Misc. 3d 8, 10 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)(“It is noted that plaintiff is not entitled to interest pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, since Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder supersede the provisions for interest contained in the CPLR”

Also, this case clashed with an older Second Department case (FYI: someone brought this one to my attention):  Matter of McMillan v. UnionAmerican Reinsurance Company, 70 AD2d 659 (2d Dept. 1979)(“Furthermore, the judgment properly provided that interest on the award continue to accrue at the rate of 2% per month “pursuant to statute”, rather than the legal rate of 6% Per annum specified in CPLR 5004.  CPLR 5004 expressly provides for the application of interest rates other than the legal rate of 6% per annum where otherwise provided by statute.  In the instance case, the interest rate of 2% per month applied by Special Term is prescribed by subdivision 1 of section 675 of the Insurance Law (see, also, 11 NYCRR 65.6))”

I can understand the frustration that the court had about allowing old judgments to collect a large interest percentage (then compounded).  Clearly, the judgment clerk’s office should not be giving a better rate of return than what is obtained through the best investor out there.  Yet, the statute seems pretty clear and the Appellate Division, I think, hit this one on the head 38 years ago.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, Insurance Law § 5106 and related no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR Parts 65-3 and 65.6 may have been amended, potentially affecting post-judgment interest calculations in no-fault cases. Additionally, CPLR provisions governing judgment interest rates and procedures may have been modified. Practitioners should verify current statutory interest rates and regulatory provisions before calculating post-judgment interest in no-fault matters.

Legal Context

Why This Matters for Your Case

New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.

About This Topic

Statutory Interest on No-Fault Insurance Claims

Under New York's no-fault regulations, insurers that fail to timely pay or deny a claim are subject to statutory interest penalties — currently two percent per month under 11 NYCRR 65-3.9. The accrual of interest, the calculation methodology, and the circumstances that toll or trigger interest obligations are frequently litigated issues in no-fault practice. These articles examine the regulatory framework governing interest on overdue no-fault claims and the case law that shapes how interest awards are calculated and enforced.

12 published articles in interest

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What statutory interest applies to overdue no-fault claims?

Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.9, overdue no-fault claims accrue interest at 2% per month from the date the claim became overdue. A claim is overdue if not paid or denied within 30 days of the insurer receiving proof of claim. This interest is a powerful incentive for prompt processing.

When does interest begin to accrue on a no-fault claim?

Interest begins on the 31st day after the insurer receives all requested verification (or the date verification was due if the insurer failed to request it timely). If the insurer fails to pay or deny within 30 days, 2% monthly interest accrues automatically until payment.

Can the insurer avoid paying interest on late no-fault claims?

Only if the insurer can demonstrate a valid excuse for the delay — such as a pending verification request that was timely issued. If the insurer caused the delay through untimely processing or late denials, interest is mandatory and cannot be waived.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.

New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.

If you need legal help with a interest matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Filed under: interest
Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (7)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

N
Nathan
The only distinctions I could possibly see is that in those other cases, they do not explicitly appear to be addressing interest payments after entry of judgment. Maybe the implication of post-judgment interest under CPLR 5003 being superseded is dicta.
J
jtlawadmin Author
I have a really good suspicion that the entities in charge of administering our state’s no-fault system probably do not agree with this decision. I hate to see people making 24% (sometimes compounded) through sitting on judgments. It is antithetical to the no-fault system. Yet, the no-fault interest rate is its own animal, regardless of whether a judgment is entered or not entered. I think the Appellate Term or Appellate Division will probably reverse this decision. In reality, the interest rate for no-fault and NY judgments should be adjusted to the market rate interest rate, similar to New Jersey and Federal non-diversity practice.
BT
Bruno Tucker
OK I am no Math Wiz, hell I have trouble with affidavits, but does this really matter. (OK the crazy facts of this case aside). No-Fault interest today is not compounded so if a judgment continues to accrue interest it is only on the principal. However the judgment interest accrues on the entire judgment, the interest, attorney fees, the costs. I would guess the difference ends up being small. I disagree with you on the issue of adjusting the interest rate on judgments. THe high rate is there to encourage people to actually pay the judgment. The debtor Is in full control of the amount of interest they will be liable for.
CM
Chris McCollum
The judgment is from 2001, so it’s compounded. It’s a huge amount.
N
nycoolbreez
wait… you mean the insurance carrier did not know they lost, really?
AQ
Alan Queen
Jason, I tried responding to the blog entry on B.Z. Chiro v. Allstate but was unsuccessful. I thought I’d try this. B.Z. gets more bizarre with the decision this week of a motion for clarification by the Plaintiff. The Appellate Term ruled that they intended to say 9% but that their direction is advisory and not subject to appeal. I have a different interpretation. This is the sentence: “We note that, contrary to plaintiffs position, postjudgment interest should be calculated pursuant to CPLR 5004 and not at the two percent per month rate provided for in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(a). Absent from that sentence is any reference to Ins Law 5106. Is there any reason we don’t read the decision exactly as it says: “if you calculate interest pursuant to the regulation, you get 9% post judgment interest. Every case that seems to allow post judgment interest at the no fault rate cites to the statute (either 657 o 5106). There are not cases that allow post disposition interest (summary judgment; inquest; judgment) that refer to the regulation. They all refer to Ins Law 5016 and the regulations promulated thereunder. Perhaps the plaintiff in B,Z, did not calculate interest properly and needs to recalculate under the statute. I partly base my view on the standard that a regulation that is contrary to a statute is to be given no weigth. The reg cited in B.Z. is contrary to the interest rate in CPLR 5004; the interested rate in Ins. Law 5106 is supported by CPLR 5004. Plus, one final note, the issue of collection of the judgment was not before either the lower or Appellate term in BZ. the Plaintiff had not started any collection proceedings other than to retrain Allstate’s Bank account. Interestingly, notwithstanding the reference to 9%, the Appellate Term reinstated the restraints that the Civil Court had lifted. The Appellate Term also modified to allow only entry of a partial satisfaction, through it is easily apparent that the amount paid by Allstate exceeded the judgment and 9%
J
jtlawadmin Author
Alan, I will call you next week. I did get your message. I think Amos needs to go to the Appellate Division on this case. As much as I get sick to think that 2% compounded interest can accrue when a case sits in a judgment clerk’s office growing mold, that is the law. My sense is that the Second Department will grant leave and reverse. Life is never easy my friend.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York interest Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how interest cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For interest matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review