Fred Schutzman Co. v Park Slope Advanced Med., PLL
Post# of 15187
Posted On: 05/02/2016 7:47:22 AM
Fred Schutzman Co. v Park Slope Advanced Med., PLLC, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4373 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t May 27, 2015)
Plaintiff loaned defendant $52,900 at an annualized interest rate of 60%. When defendant defaulted, plaintiff sued to recover. In response, defendant moved for summary judgment. It argued that the note was usurious and unenforceable. Plaintiff countered that NY CLS Gen Oblig § 5-521 prohibited defendant from asserting a usury defense because defendant was a PLLC. The trial court disagreed with plaintiff and granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, finding that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court noted that while corporations and PLLCs may not assert the defense of civil usury, they may assert the defense of criminal usury. Therefore, because the loan in question charged a rate in excess of the criminal rate of 25%, the defendant’s usury defense was valid. As a usury defense was permitted, the court found that the loan was subject to NY CLS Gen Oblig § 5-511, which voids any instrument that charges a rate in excess of 16%. As the rate charged the defendant exceeded this maximum, the court found the loan void and unenforceable.
The court then turned to plaintiff’s argument that a savings provision in the agreement prevented the loan from being voided. Plaintiff argued that the loan agreement required that the interest rate be reduced to a non-usurious rate in the event the original charge was found to be usurious. The court summarily rejected plaintiff’s position and found that the provision would not save the note from being voided as usurious
Plaintiff loaned defendant $52,900 at an annualized interest rate of 60%. When defendant defaulted, plaintiff sued to recover. In response, defendant moved for summary judgment. It argued that the note was usurious and unenforceable. Plaintiff countered that NY CLS Gen Oblig § 5-521 prohibited defendant from asserting a usury defense because defendant was a PLLC. The trial court disagreed with plaintiff and granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, finding that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court noted that while corporations and PLLCs may not assert the defense of civil usury, they may assert the defense of criminal usury. Therefore, because the loan in question charged a rate in excess of the criminal rate of 25%, the defendant’s usury defense was valid. As a usury defense was permitted, the court found that the loan was subject to NY CLS Gen Oblig § 5-511, which voids any instrument that charges a rate in excess of 16%. As the rate charged the defendant exceeded this maximum, the court found the loan void and unenforceable.
The court then turned to plaintiff’s argument that a savings provision in the agreement prevented the loan from being voided. Plaintiff argued that the loan agreement required that the interest rate be reduced to a non-usurious rate in the event the original charge was found to be usurious. The court summarily rejected plaintiff’s position and found that the provision would not save the note from being voided as usurious
(2)
(0)