Wolf v. City of New York

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. City of New York

175 Misc. 569, 23 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 Misc. 569 (Wolf v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolf v. City of New York, 175 Misc. 569, 23 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law with thirty dollars costs to the defendant, and complaint disn issed. with appropriate costs in the court below.

Plaintiff’s payment of thirty-seven dollars to the assignor in consideration of the assignment by the latter of his right to compensation from the defendant constitutes a loan within the meaning of section 355 of the Banking Law. The interest rate exacted was in excess of that permitted by section 352 of the Banking Law. The assignment is, therefore, unenforcible under the provisions of section 357 of the Banking Law. Furthermore, plaintiff concededly failed to comply with the relevant provisions of section 42 of the Personal Property Law which regulates the making of loans or advances to employees.

All concur. Present — Lewis, Smith and McCooey, J J.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law with thirty dollars costs to the defendant, and complaint disn issed. with appropriate costs in the court below.

Plaintiff’s payment of thirty-seven dollars to the assignor in consideration of the assignment by the latter of his right to compensation from the defendant constitutes a loan within the meaning of section 355 of the Banking Law. The interest rate exacted was in excess of that permitted by section 352 of the Banking Law. The assignment is, therefore, unenforcible under the provisions of section 357 of the Banking Law. Furthermore, plaintiff concededly failed to comply with the relevant provisions of section 42 of the Personal Property Law which regulates the making of loans or advances to employees.

All concur. Present — Lewis, Smith and McCooey, J J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Misc. 569, 23 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-city-of-new-york-nyappterm-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack