Crawford v. Carlton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. Carlton

73 A.D.2d 530, 422 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14264

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 1979·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 7,1978, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, [531] unanimously reversed, on the law, and summary judgment granted to the defendant dismissing the complaint, without costs and disbursements. The promissory demand note dated July 29, 1976, in the principal amount of $50,000, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, is patently usurious and, therefore, void under section 5-511 of the General Obligations Law. Section 5-519 of the General Obligations Law "was never intended and cannot be construed to emasculate [General Business Law, § 373 (now General Obligations Law, § 5-511)]” (Bowery Sav. Bank v Nirenstein, 269 NY 259, 264). When a note reserves to the lender an illegal rate of interest, that will satisfy the borrower’s burden of proving a usurious loan (Matter of Dane, 55 AD2d 224). Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Lupiano, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 7,1978, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, [531] unanimously reversed, on the law, and summary judgment granted to the defendant dismissing the complaint, without costs and disbursements. The promissory demand note dated July 29, 1976, in the principal amount of $50,000, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, is patently usurious and, therefore, void under section 5-511 of the General Obligations Law. Section 5-519 of the General Obligations Law "was never intended and cannot be construed to emasculate [General Business Law, § 373 (now General Obligations Law, § 5-511)]” (Bowery Sav. Bank v Nirenstein, 269 NY 259, 264). When a note reserves to the lender an illegal rate of interest, that will satisfy the borrower’s burden of proving a usurious loan (Matter of Dane, 55 AD2d 224). Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Lupiano, JJ.

Crawford v. Carlton, 73 A.D.2d 530, 422 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

73 A.D.2d 530 (Crawford v. Carlton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related