Stein v. Astro Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Astro Properties, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 553, 295 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 553 (Stein v. Astro Properties, Inc.) 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

Stein v. Astro Properties, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 553, 295 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated February 20, 1968, which denied her motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, payable jointly by respondents appearing separately. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, there is no showing that the loan made to a corporation and guaranteed by defendant Rae individually was in fact made to Rae individually, though in form to the corporation, to hide the fact that appellant was exacting an illegal rate of interest. The loan was not an illegal, usurious loan and the defense of usury is not available in a foreclosure action brought against a defendant corporation (Leader v. Dinkler Mgt. Corp., 20 N Y 2d 393; Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N. Y. 319). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated February 20, 1968, which denied her motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, payable jointly by respondents appearing separately. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, there is no showing that the loan made to a corporation and guaranteed by defendant Rae individually was in fact made to Rae individually, though in form to the corporation, to hide the fact that appellant was exacting an illegal rate of interest. The loan was not an illegal, usurious loan and the defense of usury is not available in a foreclosure action brought against a defendant corporation (Leader v. Dinkler Mgt. Corp., 20 N Y 2d 393; Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N. Y. 319). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 553, 295 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-astro-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack