Aaron v. Mattikow

Second Circuit

Aaron v. Mattikow

61 F. App'x 764

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2003

DocketDocket No. 02-7971

StatusPublished

This text of 61 F. App'x 764 (Aaron v. Mattikow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron v. Mattikow, 61 F. App'x 764 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Alfred H. Mattikow appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Boyle, M.J.). Following a bench trial, the court found that Mattikow had failed to pay sums due under a promissory note and awarded the plaintiff-appellant $100,557.29. We affirm for substantially the reasons in the court’s opinion. See Aaron v. Mattikow, 146 F.Supp.2d 263 (E.D.N.Y.2001).

The judgment in this case turned on whether the obligation to pay a 24% rate of interest pursuant to a promissory note, which was discharged in exchange for the promissory note at issue, was usurious. See N.Y. General Obligations Law §§ 5— 501, 5-521. Resolution of this issue required a factual finding as to whether the original obligation was incurred by Mattikow in his personal capacity (in which case the rate of interest was usurious) or by the Maypat Realty Corp., of which he was the President (in which case it was not). Mattikow’s theory of usury was supported primarily by his own testimony, which was contradicted by documentary evidence. The court’s decision to disregard that testimony was not clearly erroneous. See Thyssen. Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A., 310 F.3d 102, 104 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Alfred H. Mattikow appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Boyle, M.J.). Following a bench trial, the court found that Mattikow had failed to pay sums due under a promissory note and awarded the plaintiff-appellant $100,557.29. We affirm for substantially the reasons in the court’s opinion. See Aaron v. Mattikow, 146 F.Supp.2d 263 (E.D.N.Y.2001).

The judgment in this case turned on whether the obligation to pay a 24% rate of interest pursuant to a promissory note, which was discharged in exchange for the promissory note at issue, was usurious. See N.Y. General Obligations Law §§ 5— 501, 5-521. Resolution of this issue required a factual finding as to whether the original obligation was incurred by Mattikow in his personal capacity (in which case the rate of interest was usurious) or by the Maypat Realty Corp., of which he was the President (in which case it was not). Mattikow’s theory of usury was supported primarily by his own testimony, which was contradicted by documentary evidence. The court’s decision to disregard that testimony was not clearly erroneous. See Thyssen. Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A., 310 F.3d 102, 104 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 F. App'x 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-v-mattikow-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack