You are here: / / Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious
,

Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious

The Second Department determined a loan transaction and the associated note and mortgage were void because the loan was usurious:

Under the civil usury statute, the maximum interest rate on a loan is 16% per annum (see General Obligations Law § 5-501[1]; Banking Law § 14-a[1]). General Obligations Law § 5-501(6)(a) provides that the 16% maximum interest rate is not applicable “to any loan or forbearance in the amount of [$250,000] or more, other than a loan or a forbearance secured primarily by an interest in real property improved by a one or two family residence.” * * *

To determine whether the interest charged exceeded the usury limit, we must apply the traditional method for calculating the effective interest rate as set forth in Band Realty Co. v North Brewster (37 NY2d 460, 462). Viewing the loan as a one-year loan, the total annual interest is $43,175 ($33,000 in annual interest at 12% on $275,000, plus $10,175 in retained interest fees). The net loan funds advanced, i.e., the loan principal ($275,000) minus the retained interest ($10,175), equals $264,825. Expressed as a percentage of the net loan funds advanced, the $43,175 in total annual interest equals 16.3% of $264,825. The effective interest rate of 16.3% exceeds the civil usury limit, and the loan was therefore usurious.  Oliveto Holdings Inc v Rattenni, 2013 NY Slip Op 06844, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

You might also like
THE ONE-HALF INCH DEFECT IN A STEP WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF.
IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SPELLED OUT WHAT THE ATTORNEYS AGREED TO DO, DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Case Brought by UK Citizen Re: Death in Dubai Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens... Question of Fact Whether Encroaching Hedge Was De Minimus Encroachment Re: Adverse...