Lander v. Gambino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lander v. Gambino

94 A.D.2d 715, 462 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18156

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

DecidedMay 9, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.2d 715 (Lander v. Gambino) 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

Lander v. Gambino, 94 A.D.2d 715, 462 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, defendant Matone appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Dickinson, J.), dated October 29, 1982, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against Matone in the sum of $25,165.49. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In the instant matter, the promissory note sued upon evidences a pre-existing debt of appellant to plaintiff. This transaction cannot be viewed as a means of disguising a usurious loan. Since nothing akin to the borrowing or lending of money, goods or things in action (General Obligations Law, § 5-501, subd 1; § 5-511, subd 1) is involved, the prohibition and forfeiture provisions of the usury laws are inapplicable (see DeSimon v Ogden Assoc., 88 AD2d 472; Stitz v Stevens, 70 AD2d 588, affd 48 NY2d 957; Schreiber v Thistle, Inc., 108 Mise 2d 333). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover on a promissory note, defendant Matone appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Dickinson, J.), dated October 29, 1982, which was in favor of the plaintiff and against Matone in the sum of $25,165.49. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In the instant matter, the promissory note sued upon evidences a pre-existing debt of appellant to plaintiff. This transaction cannot be viewed as a means of disguising a usurious loan. Since nothing akin to the borrowing or lending of money, goods or things in action (General Obligations Law, § 5-501, subd 1; § 5-511, subd 1) is involved, the prohibition and forfeiture provisions of the usury laws are inapplicable (see DeSimon v Ogden Assoc., 88 AD2d 472; Stitz v Stevens, 70 AD2d 588, affd 48 NY2d 957; Schreiber v Thistle, Inc., 108 Mise 2d 333). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 715, 462 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lander-v-gambino-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack