You are here: / / Interest Paid In Advance Should Not Be Deducted from the Face Amount of...

Interest Paid In Advance Should Not Be Deducted from the Face Amount of the Loan When Determining Interest Rate—Law of Usury Does Not Apply to Interest After the Maturity of the Note (Late Payments)

The Third Department explained the law of usury as it related to interest paid in advance and interest after maturity of the note (late charges):

The defense of usury requires clear and convincing evidence of a loan given with the intent to take interest in excess of the legal rate … . As relevant here, a loan is usurious if the annual interest rate exceeds 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; Banking Law § 14-a [1]). Defendant bases his claim of usury on his advanced interest payment, claiming that the annual interest rate should be calculated by dividing the total annual interest, $18,750, by the total received at closing, $115,625, resulting in an annual interest rate of 16.2%. However, the Court of Appeals has held that “interest on the whole amount of principal agreed to be paid at maturity, not exceeding the legal rate, may be taken in advance” … . Thus, under the traditional method of computation as set forth in Band, the prepaid interest is not deducted from the face amount of the loan and defendant was charged a legal rate of 15% interest … . Defendant’s contention that the late charges incurred after the default should also be included in the calculation of interest is unavailing, because “[t]he defense of usury does not apply where the terms of a promissory note impose a rate of interest in excess of the statutory maximum only after maturity of the note” … . Martell v Drake, 2015 NY Slip Op 00685, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

You might also like
Self-Insured Employer Not Entitled to Offset Workers’ Compensation Benefits by the Amount Claimant Received in a Third-Party Settlement
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, DESPITE THE ATTORNEY’S SIGNING A DOCUMENT INDICATING SHE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (THIRD DEPT).
Broker Entitled to Commission Based Upon Defendant’s Refusal of a Purchase Offer/Copy of Purchase Offer Properly Put in Evidence
FATHER’S VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MOTHER’S CONSENT; ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE LINCOLN HEARING IN THE APPELLATE BRIEF; THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ARE SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE HEARING ON WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AN INCAPACITATED PERSON IN HER ABSENCE WITHOUT FIRST FINDING SHE COULD NOT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR APPELLANT BECAUSE SHE WAS CONTESTING THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant-Interpreter Properly Found to Be an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

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

Revocation of Pistol Permit Upheld Despite Petitioner’s Acquittal on Related... Employer’s Claim for Reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for...