Defendant-respondent admitted that the advance of money to him as a loan would have been paid by him at any time prior to the expiration of one year. Thus, the transaction is removed from the proscription of the statute, and the projected defense would be fruitless. (See Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025, subd [b].) In any event, the loan transaction's terms are not evident from the record, and payment could have been demanded by...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
