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

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 530 (Crawford v. Carlton) 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

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

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 7,1978, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, [531]*531unanimously 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]*531unanimously 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 530, 422 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-carlton-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack