Southern Financial Group, Inc. v. Collins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Southern Financial Group, Inc. v. Collins

6 A.D.3d 692, 775 N.Y.S.2d 161

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 692 (Southern Financial Group, Inc. v. Collins) 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

Southern Financial Group, Inc. v. Collins, 6 A.D.3d 692, 775 N.Y.S.2d 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, (1) from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), entered October [693]*69331, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 7, 2002, denying the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint, among other things, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated March 10, 2003, as, upon granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the subject mortgage was usurious, and thus, void and unenforceable (see generally Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 54 NY2d 580 [1981]). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Adams and Cozier, JJ, concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, (1) from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), entered October [693]*69331, 2002, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 7, 2002, denying the plaintiffs motion, in effect, for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint, among other things, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated March 10, 2003, as, upon granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the subject mortgage was usurious, and thus, void and unenforceable (see generally Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 54 NY2d 580 [1981]). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Adams and Cozier, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 692, 775 N.Y.S.2d 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-financial-group-inc-v-collins-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack