Amato v. Osarwald Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amato v. Osarwald Construction Corp.

32 A.D.2d 548, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 548 (Amato v. Osarwald Construction Corp.) 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

Amato v. Osarwald Construction Corp., 32 A.D.2d 548, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant Osarwald Construction Corp., as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 1, 1968 and made on reargument and renewal of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as adhered to a decision granting plaintiff’s said motion. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s said motion denied. The action is to foreclose a mortgage. In its answer appellant interposed the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations, alleging that the cause of action accrued more than six years prior to the date on which the action was commenced. On the renewal motion, appellant also asserted that the defense of usury was available to it. In our opinion plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. While it is clear that the defense of usury is unavailable to appellant, as the loan was made to a corporation and none of the exceptions of the General Obligations Law applies (see General Obligations Law, § 5-521), in our view there are factual issues present at least as to whether the action is time barred. The factual issues arise out of the contrary positions taken in the papers before us as to whether an interest payment was made on the account of the subject mortgage or on a separate loan agreement. These matters ought to be explored at a plenary trial. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant Osarwald Construction Corp., as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 1, 1968 and made on reargument and renewal of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as adhered to a decision granting plaintiff’s said motion. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s said motion denied. The action is to foreclose a mortgage. In its answer appellant interposed the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations, alleging that the cause of action accrued more than six years prior to the date on which the action was commenced. On the renewal motion, appellant also asserted that the defense of usury was available to it. In our opinion plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. While it is clear that the defense of usury is unavailable to appellant, as the loan was made to a corporation and none of the exceptions of the General Obligations Law applies (see General Obligations Law, § 5-521), in our view there are factual issues present at least as to whether the action is time barred. The factual issues arise out of the contrary positions taken in the papers before us as to whether an interest payment was made on the account of the subject mortgage or on a separate loan agreement. These matters ought to be explored at a plenary trial. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 548, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amato-v-osarwald-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack