Flushing National Bank v. Pinetop Building Corp.

54 A.D.2d 555, 387 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13866
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 20, 1976·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action inter alia upon a promissory note, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 27, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff is a national bank which loaned money to defendant Pinetop Building Corp., the maker of a promissory note. The individual defendants are guarantors of that note. At the trial, it was adduced that the loan was at an interest rate of 27.5% per year. Defendants contend that under section 190.40 of the Penal Law, which makes loans at an interest rate in excess of 25% per annum criminally usurious, the entire loan, principal and interest, is illegal and void, and hence unenforceable. Under subdivision 6 of section 108 and section 235-b of the Banking Law, the sole penalty for any usurious loan by a banking institution is the forfeiture of interest. Section 190.40 of the Penal Law was not intended to cover loans by banks (see Franklin Nat. Bank of L. I. v De Giacomo, 20 AD2d 797; Reisman v Hartmann & Son, 51 Misc 2d 393). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Flushing National Bank v. Pinetop Building Corp., 54 A.D.2d 555, 387 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

54 A.D.2d 555 (Flushing National Bank v. Pinetop Building Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tides Edge Corp. v. Central Federal Savings
151 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Freitas v. Geddes Savings & Loan Ass'n
471 N.E.2d 437 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Ayers
109 Misc. 2d 870 (New York County Courts, 1981)