Corrective legislation is necessarily retrospective in its operation. A remedial statute may affect past transactions, and where it appears that the legislation intended to provide a remedy for evils existing, as well as those likely to occur, it will be extended to such cases, although there are no retrospective words in the act (People ex rel. Pells v. Supervisors of Ulster County, 65 N. Y. 300).
Respondents ’ emphasis upon some words of the statute - as amended to indicate prospective application thereof is misplaced, in the light of the reasons which caused its enactment and the abuse it sought to overcome. The courts are not bound to follow the literal wording of a statute where ‘ ‘ literal construction of the statute would produce a result which the Legislature plainly did not intend.” (Matter of Russo v. Valentine, 294 N. Y. 338, 342).
It is fundamental that ‘ ‘ The intent of the Legislature in enacting legislation is the primary object to be found. Whenever such intention is apparent it must be followed in construing the statute * * * a thing which is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be within the intention of the lawmakers * * *. It is a familiar legal maxim that ‘ he who considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning, ’ * * * not according to the letter.” (Matter of Astman v. Kelly, 2 N Y 2d 567, 572).
The contemplation and intention of the sponsors of the amendment in preparing it for the Legislature was to place all security deposits in interest-bearing’ accounts. Unless this construction shall prevail, the statute would seem to be entirely abortive.