Reilly v. Academic Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reilly v. Academic Development Corp.

40 A.D.2d 986, 337 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3210

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 986 (Reilly v. Academic Development 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

Reilly v. Academic Development Corp., 40 A.D.2d 986, 337 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a promissory note, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 7, 1972, as (a) denied his motion for summary judgment upon papers in lieu of a complaint and (b) granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the action. Order modified by (1) striking from the second decretal paragraph thereof the word “ granted ” and substituting therefor the word “denied” and (2) striking so much of the fourth decretal paragraph thereof as directs entry of judgment against plaintiff As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the following triable issues of fact are presented: (1) whether the loan made by plaintiff was in fact usurious, (2) whether the sale of capital stock of defendant’s corporate subsidiary to plaintiff was a cloak for extra interest charged on the loan and (3) whether the loan made to defendant was “ knowingly ” made at .a rate exceeding 25% per annum within the meaning of the applicable statutes (Penal Law, § 190.40; General Obligations Law, § 5-521, subd. 3; Balk v. Frank, 29 A D 2d 685). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a promissory note, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 7, 1972, as (a) denied his motion for summary judgment upon papers in lieu of a complaint and (b) granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the action. Order modified by (1) striking from the second decretal paragraph thereof the word “ granted ” and substituting therefor the word “denied” and (2) striking so much of the fourth decretal paragraph thereof as directs entry of judgment against plaintiff As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the following triable issues of fact are presented: (1) whether the loan made by plaintiff was in fact usurious, (2) whether the sale of capital stock of defendant’s corporate subsidiary to plaintiff was a cloak for extra interest charged on the loan and (3) whether the loan made to defendant was “ knowingly ” made at .a rate exceeding 25% per annum within the meaning of the applicable statutes (Penal Law, § 190.40; General Obligations Law, § 5-521, subd. 3; Balk v. Frank, 29 A D 2d 685). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 986, 337 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-academic-development-corp-nyappdiv-1972.