Relying on Eikenberry v. Adirondack Spring Water, Co. ( 65 N.Y.2d 125), which permitted a lender to recover under the parties' original valid loan agreement even though two subsequent agreements extending the maturity date of the note were declared void for charging a civilly usurious rate of interest, the motion court properly rejected defendant's argument that the entire loan agreement between the parties should be declared void based upon a post-default extension of the original loan, alleged by defendant to charge a criminally usurious rate of interest. The principle that an obligation valid at its inception is not invalidated or tainted with usury by a subsequent usurious transaction applies regardless of whether the subsequent transaction is civilly or criminally usurious. Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn Corp. ( 54 N.Y.2d 580), in which issues of fact were found as to whether the loan agreement there involved was criminally usurious from its inception, does not require a contrary conclusion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.