The proof was that there was a sale of a used car on credit to the complainant, and that the difference between the cash price and the credit price made necessary by the cost of financing was in excess of the legal rate of interest. This transaction is not one of those covered by section 2400 of the Penal Law, and there is no authority in this State which holds the sale of merchandise on credit to be affected by the provisions against usury contained in section 371 Gen. Bus. of the General Business Law. ( Brooks v. Avery, 4 N.Y. 225; McAnsh v. Blauner, 222 App. Div. 381, affd. 248 N.Y. 537; Tierney Sons, Inc., v. Bajowski, 233 App. Div. 766, affd. 258 N.Y. 563; Archer Motor Co. v. Relin, 255 App. Div. 333.) The judgment is reversed on the law and the facts, the fine remitted and the information dismissed. Close, P.J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.