Flushing National Bank v. Pinetop Building Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 555 (Flushing National Bank v. Pinetop Building Corp.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 555, 387 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flushing-national-bank-v-pinetop-building-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack