Shifer v. Kelmendi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shifer v. Kelmendi

248 A.D.2d 375, 669 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2189

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1998·Published

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 26, 1996, which, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $130,951.04.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the subject loan is criminally usurious has already been considered and rejected by prior decision and order of this Court dated May 2, 1994 (see, Shifer v .Kelmendi, 204 AD2d 300; cf., People v Williams, 188 AD2d 573).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 26, 1996, which, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $130,951.04.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s contention that the subject loan is criminally usurious has already been considered and rejected by prior decision and order of this Court dated May 2, 1994 (see, Shifer v .Kelmendi, 204 AD2d 300; cf., People v Williams, 188 AD2d 573).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Shifer v. Kelmendi, 248 A.D.2d 375, 669 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 375 (Shifer v. Kelmendi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related