Vidals Inc. v. Gerosa-Palladino Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vidals Inc. v. Gerosa-Palladino Corp.

51 A.D.2d 525, 379 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 525 (Vidals Inc. v. Gerosa-Palladino Corp.) 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

Vidals Inc. v. Gerosa-Palladino Corp., 51 A.D.2d 525, 379 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 9, 1975, denying plaintiffs’ motion to stay and enjoin sale by defendant of its interest in a certain third-party mortgage, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The assignment of the mortgage was plainly an assignment as collateral security, and thus the excess of the value or face amount of the mortgage over the amount of the loan is immaterial in determining whether the loan was usurious. The contention that the loan was really to the individual plaintiff rather than to the corporate plaintiff is not supported by sufficiently clear evidence to warrant a temporary injunction. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered May 9, 1975, denying plaintiffs’ motion to stay and enjoin sale by defendant of its interest in a certain third-party mortgage, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The assignment of the mortgage was plainly an assignment as collateral security, and thus the excess of the value or face amount of the mortgage over the amount of the loan is immaterial in determining whether the loan was usurious. The contention that the loan was really to the individual plaintiff rather than to the corporate plaintiff is not supported by sufficiently clear evidence to warrant a temporary injunction. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 525, 379 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidals-inc-v-gerosa-palladino-corp-nyappdiv-1976.