A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v. Fariello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v. Fariello

164 A.D.2d 973, 559 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16830

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 A.D.2d 973 (A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v. Fariello) 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

A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v. Fariello, 164 A.D.2d 973, 559 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted. There is a question of fact whether this loan, although in corporate form, was made to an individual (see, Schneider v Phelps, 41 NY2d 238, 241-242; Jenkins v Moyse, 254 NY 319, 324; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885, 886; Shapiro v Weissman, 7 AD2d 752, 753). Moreover, even if this were a loan to a corporation, there is a question of fact whether this transaction violated the criminal usury statute (Penal Law § 190.40). In addition to the interest rate of 24% called for in the note, the amount of $11,250, which plaintiff’s president characterized as a "lender’s fee”, was charged and paid out of the proceeds of the loan. Plaintiff offered no proof concerning the nature of that fee. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Roncallo, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted. There is a question of fact whether this loan, although in corporate form, was made to an individual (see, Schneider v Phelps, 41 NY2d 238, 241-242; Jenkins v Moyse, 254 NY 319, 324; Kaye v Keret, 89 AD2d 885, 886; Shapiro v Weissman, 7 AD2d 752, 753). Moreover, even if this were a loan to a corporation, there is a question of fact whether this transaction violated the criminal usury statute (Penal Law § 190.40). In addition to the interest rate of 24% called for in the note, the amount of $11,250, which plaintiff’s president characterized as a "lender’s fee”, was charged and paid out of the proceeds of the loan. Plaintiff offered no proof concerning the nature of that fee. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Roncallo, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D.2d 973, 559 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asap-funding-corp-v-fariello-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack