AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

FLUSHING NATIONAL BANK, Respondent, v. PINETOP BUILDING CORP. et al., Appellants.

In an action inter alia upon a promissory note, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 27, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff is a national bank which loaned money to defendant Pinetop Building Corp., the maker of a promissory note. The individual defendants are guarantors of that note. At the trial, it was adduced that the loan was at an interest rate of 27.5% per year. Defendants contend that under section 190.40 Penal of the Penal Law, which makes loans at an interest rate in excess of 25% per annum criminally usurious, the entire loan, principal and interest, is illegal and void, and hence unenforceable. Under subdivision 6 of section 108 and section 235-b Banking of the Banking Law, the sole penalty for any usurious loan by a banking institution is the forfeiture of interest. Section 190.40 Penal of the Penal Law was not intended to cover loans by banks (see Franklin Nat. Bank of L.I. v De Giacomo, 20 A.D.2d 797; Reisman v Hartmann Son, 51 Misc.2d 393). Martuscello, Acting P.J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FLUSHING NATIONAL BANK v. PINETOP BLDG. CORP
(Sep 20, 1976)