Brest v. Kleidman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brest v. Kleidman

300 A.D.2d 133, 751 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12487

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 133 (Brest v. Kleidman) 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

Brest v. Kleidman, 300 A.D.2d 133, 751 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 19, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Relying on Eikenberry v Adirondack Spring Water Co. (65 NY2d 125), which permitted a lender to recover under the parties’ original valid loan agreement even though two subsequent agreements extending the maturity date of the note were declared void for charging a civilly usurious rate of interest, the motion court properly rejected defendant’s argument that the entire loan agreement between the parties should be declared void based upon a postdefault extension of the original loan, alleged by defendant to charge a criminally usurious rate of interest. The principle that an obligation valid at its inception is not invalidated or tainted with usury by a subsequent usurious transaction applies regardless of whether the subsequent transaction is civilly or criminally usurious. Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp. (54 NY2d 580), in which issues of fact were found as to whether the loan agreement there involved was criminally usurious from its inception, does not require a contrary conclusion. Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 19, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Relying on Eikenberry v Adirondack Spring Water Co. (65 NY2d 125), which permitted a lender to recover under the parties’ original valid loan agreement even though two subsequent agreements extending the maturity date of the note were declared void for charging a civilly usurious rate of interest, the motion court properly rejected defendant’s argument that the entire loan agreement between the parties should be declared void based upon a postdefault extension of the original loan, alleged by defendant to charge a criminally usurious rate of interest. The principle that an obligation valid at its inception is not invalidated or tainted with usury by a subsequent usurious transaction applies regardless of whether the subsequent transaction is civilly or criminally usurious. Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp. (54 NY2d 580), in which issues of fact were found as to whether the loan agreement there involved was criminally usurious from its inception, does not require a contrary conclusion. Concur — Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 133, 751 N.Y.S.2d 473, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brest-v-kleidman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack