The court properly denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of usury. At the outset, we reject plaintiff's argument that the usury statute (Penal Law § 190.40) does not apply to this case. We further find that plaintiff's estoppel argument involves questions of fact to be raised at trial, and that defendant is not precluded, as a matter of law, from raising the defense of usury (see e.g. Pemper v Reifer,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
HORT v. DEVINE
1 A.D.3d 266 (2003)
769 N.Y.S.2d 376
MICHAEL HORT, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE DEVINE, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
November 20, 2003.
November 20, 2003.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
