1080 Warburton Corp. v. Torrisi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1080 Warburton Corp. v. Torrisi

167 A.D.2d 336, 561 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 336 (1080 Warburton Corp. v. Torrisi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1080 Warburton Corp. v. Torrisi, 167 A.D.2d 336, 561 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 1921, inter alia, to cancel and discharge a purchase-money mortgage, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered April 26, 1989, which denied their application to declare a loan transaction null and void because of a usurious interest rate, and ordered the creation of replacement promissory notes, pledges and security agreements conforming to language and terms directed by the court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly rejected their claim of usury. The so-called "loan transaction” in this case, a contractual arrangement between the parties, entitled the respondent sellers, John V. Torrisi, Joseph L. Torrisi and Angelo M. Torrisi, to receive an interest in a cooperative conversion plan upon their execution of a document evidencing a satisfaction of a purchase-money mortgage they took back as part of the sale of their apartment building to the petitioner purchasers. Thus, there was no loan or forebearance of money, a necessary requirement before there can be a finding of usury (see, General Obligations Law § 5-501; Szerdahelyi v Harris, 67 NY2d 42, 46; Orvis v Curtiss, 157 NY 657; DeSimon v Ogden Assocs., 88 AD2d 472, 477-481).

We have considered the petitioners’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 1921, inter alia, to cancel and discharge a purchase-money mortgage, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered April 26, 1989, which denied their application to declare a loan transaction null and void because of a usurious interest rate, and ordered the creation of replacement promissory notes, pledges and security agreements conforming to language and terms directed by the court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly rejected their claim of usury. The so-called "loan transaction” in this case, a contractual arrangement between the parties, entitled the respondent sellers, John V. Torrisi, Joseph L. Torrisi and Angelo M. Torrisi, to receive an interest in a cooperative conversion plan upon their execution of a document evidencing a satisfaction of a purchase-money mortgage they took back as part of the sale of their apartment building to the petitioner purchasers. Thus, there was no loan or forebearance of money, a necessary requirement before there can be a finding of usury (see, General Obligations Law § 5-501; Szerdahelyi v Harris, 67 NY2d 42, 46; Orvis v Curtiss, 157 NY 657; DeSimon v Ogden Assocs., 88 AD2d 472, 477-481).

We have considered the petitioners’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 336, 561 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1080-warburton-corp-v-torrisi-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack