East New York Savings Bank v. Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East New York Savings Bank v. Lang

261 A.D. 981, 26 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8420

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 981 (East New York Savings Bank v. Lang) 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

East New York Savings Bank v. Lang, 261 A.D. 981, 26 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to recover interest due and unpaid on a bond made by the defendant and another in favor of the plaintiff, order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The defenses of usury present a triable issue as to whether the guaranty was exacted in good faith, or whether it was merely a device to conceal a usurious loan. (Hartley v. Eagle Insurance Co., 222 N. Y. 178.) Depending upon the facts of the particular case, the requirement of a guaranty might be a perfectly legitimate transaction, as in Brown v. Jones (89 Misc. 538), or a mere cloak for usury, as in Palmer v. Jones (69 Hun, 240; appeal dismissed, 140 N. Y. [982]*982657). The question is one of intention (Hall v. Eagle Insurance Co., 151 App. Div. 815, 826; affd., 211 N. Y. 507), and presents an issue of fact (Thurston v. Cornell, 38 N. Y. 281). In an action brought solely to recover unpaid interest the defense of usury is available under section 108 of the Banking Law. We do not pass on the right of the defendant to affirmative relief by way of counterclaim, or on the sufficiency of the other defenses. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to recover interest due and unpaid on a bond made by the defendant and another in favor of the plaintiff, order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The defenses of usury present a triable issue as to whether the guaranty was exacted in good faith, or whether it was merely a device to conceal a usurious loan. (Hartley v. Eagle Insurance Co., 222 N. Y. 178.) Depending upon the facts of the particular case, the requirement of a guaranty might be a perfectly legitimate transaction, as in Brown v. Jones (89 Misc. 538), or a mere cloak for usury, as in Palmer v. Jones (69 Hun, 240; appeal dismissed, 140 N. Y. [982]*982657). The question is one of intention (Hall v. Eagle Insurance Co., 151 App. Div. 815, 826; affd., 211 N. Y. 507), and presents an issue of fact (Thurston v. Cornell, 38 N. Y. 281). In an action brought solely to recover unpaid interest the defense of usury is available under section 108 of the Banking Law. We do not pass on the right of the defendant to affirmative relief by way of counterclaim, or on the sufficiency of the other defenses. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 981, 26 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-new-york-savings-bank-v-lang-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack