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
CALCULATION OF ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY STEMMING FROM A DEGREE EARNED DURING MARRIAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOCATING MARITAL PROPERTY IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE SUGGESTED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL; THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT ON THE STREET WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REACHING FOR AN OBJECT IN DEFENDANT’S SWEATSHIRT POCKET; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT AND DISCARDING OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER’S UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE IN SUMMATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; A WITNESS MAY IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL DESPITE A PROCEDURALLY-DEFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY NAMING PLAINTIFF IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HER HUSBAND’S ESTATE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ERRONEOUSLY BROUGHT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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...