Silverman & Kantrowich, Inc. v. Liebers

130 Misc. 582, 224 N.Y.S. 332, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1109
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 23, 1927·Published

Opinion

Frankenthaler, J.

The action is for breach of a written contract by which defendant it is claimed agreed to lend plaintiff [583]*583$40,000. The defense sought to be stricken out alleges that defendant was to receive a bonus of $10,500 for the loan, and that defendant rescinded the agreement on learning that this payment would make the agreement illegal and usurious. As plaintiff, the borrower, was a corporation, the usury laws of this State have no application to it. (Gen. Bus. Law, § 374; Moers v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, No. 1, 208 App. Div. 473; Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 N. Y. 665; MacQuoid v. Queens Estates, 143 App. Div. 134.) Moreover, an alleged usurer cannot claim that an agreement made by him is usurious, even though it is still executory. (Billington v. Wagoner, 33 N. Y. 31.) Motion granted.

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

Silverman & Kantrowich, Inc. v. Liebers, 130 Misc. 582, 224 N.Y.S. 332, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1109 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1927).

130 Misc. 582 (Silverman & Kantrowich, Inc. v. Liebers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Billington v. . Wagoner
33 N.Y. 31 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
Rosa v. . Butterfield
33 N.Y. 665 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
macQouid v. Estates
143 A.D. 134 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Moers v. American Exchange National Bank
208 A.D. 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)