Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Sanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Sanford

139 A.D.2d 881, 527 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453

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

DecidedApril 28, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 881 (Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Sanford) 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

Marine Midland Bank, N. A. v. Sanford, 139 A.D.2d 881, 527 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), entered September 8, 1987, which denied plaintiff’s motion for sum[882]*882mary judgment and granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the complaint.

The issue before us is whether County Court properly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the transaction contained in the retail installment agreement is usurious. There must be a reversal. Plaintiff sued as assignee of a retail installment agreement executed between defendants, as purchasers of a furnace, and the seller, a furnace supplier. The agreement provided for credit at a yearly rate of 17% to be paid in 60 monthly installments of $106.66 per month. Upon default, defendants agreed to pay an interest rate of 2% per month on the unpaid balance, reasonable counsel fees and court costs. Defendants defaulted on the contract.

Retail installment contracts are governed by Personal Property Law § 404. The rate of interest charged herein is in conformity with the Personal Property Law. Plaintiff, as assignee, is entitled to sue on the underlying contract agreement (see, Personal Property Law § 411 [1]).

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and summary judgment awarded to plaintiff. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), entered September 8, 1987, which denied plaintiff’s motion for sum[882]*882mary judgment and granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the complaint.

The issue before us is whether County Court properly granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the transaction contained in the retail installment agreement is usurious. There must be a reversal. Plaintiff sued as assignee of a retail installment agreement executed between defendants, as purchasers of a furnace, and the seller, a furnace supplier. The agreement provided for credit at a yearly rate of 17% to be paid in 60 monthly installments of $106.66 per month. Upon default, defendants agreed to pay an interest rate of 2% per month on the unpaid balance, reasonable counsel fees and court costs. Defendants defaulted on the contract.

Retail installment contracts are governed by Personal Property Law § 404. The rate of interest charged herein is in conformity with the Personal Property Law. Plaintiff, as assignee, is entitled to sue on the underlying contract agreement (see, Personal Property Law § 411 [1]).

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and summary judgment awarded to plaintiff. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 881, 527 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-n-a-v-sanford-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack