Shorehaven Associates, Inc. v. King

184 A.D.2d 764
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 764 (Shorehaven Associates, Inc. v. King) 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
Shorehaven Associates, Inc. v. King, 184 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Lorna E. King appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered July 13, 1990, which denied her motion to stay the foreclosure sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant’s purported defense of usury based upon a provision in the mortgage increasing the interest to a higher rate upon a default in payment is meritless (see, Klapper v Integrated Agric. Mgt. Co., 149 AD2d 765; Bloom v Trepmal Constr. Corp., 29 AD2d 951, affd 23 NY2d 730). Furthermore, the appellant is in violation of a stipulation entered into in open court, dated January 25, 1990, whereby she agreed to pay the sum of $120,000 to the plaintiff. At that time, the appellant also withdrew all affirmative defenses.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to stay the foreclosure sale and to dismiss the complaint as asserted against her. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC
237 F. Supp. 3d 130 (S.D. New York, 2017)
HSBC Bank USA v. Desrouilleres
128 A.D.3d 1013 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Hicki v. Choice Capital Corp.
264 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Miller Planning Corp. v. Wells
253 A.D.2d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rebeil Consulting Corp. v. Kappa Realty Corp.
244 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 A.D.2d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shorehaven-associates-inc-v-king-nyappdiv-1992.