Christopher v. Gurrieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christopher v. Gurrieri

238 A.D.2d 299, 655 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3378

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 299 (Christopher v. Gurrieri) 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

Christopher v. Gurrieri, 238 A.D.2d 299, 655 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover money allegedly due upon a promissory note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered August 14, 1995, which, after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $226,900.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The promissory note sued upon was executed by the defendants in connection with their purchase of the plaintiff’s business. Therefore, the transaction was neither a loan nor a forbearance (see, General Obligations Law § 5-501) but was in the nature of a purchase-money mortgage which is not subject to the usury laws (see, Szerdahelyi v Harris, 67 NY2d 42; Mandelino v Fribourg, 23 NY2d 145; Stitz v Stevens, 70 AD2d 588, affd 48 NY2d 957).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover money allegedly due upon a promissory note, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), entered August 14, 1995, which, after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $226,900.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The promissory note sued upon was executed by the defendants in connection with their purchase of the plaintiff’s business. Therefore, the transaction was neither a loan nor a forbearance (see, General Obligations Law § 5-501) but was in the nature of a purchase-money mortgage which is not subject to the usury laws (see, Szerdahelyi v Harris, 67 NY2d 42; Mandelino v Fribourg, 23 NY2d 145; Stitz v Stevens, 70 AD2d 588, affd 48 NY2d 957).

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 299, 655 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-v-gurrieri-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack