Case ID: misc_130/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Frankenthaler, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Silverman & Kantrowich, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Arthur Walter Liebers, Defendant.
    Supreme Court, New York County,
    September 23, 1927.
    Usury — action by corporation for breach of contract to loan money — no defense that contract was usurious.
    In an action by a corporation to recover damages for breach of a contract to loan money, it is not a defense that the contract was usurious, for the corporation cannot take advantage of the usury laws of the State, and furthermore, an alleged usurer cannot claim an agreement made by him is usurious even though it is still executory.
    Motion by the plaintiff to strike out an affirmative defense.
    
      Tetelman & Tetelman, for the plaintiff.
    
      Robert E. Moffett, for the defendant.
   Frankenthaler, J.

The action is for breach of a written contract by which defendant it is claimed agreed to lend plaintiff $40,000. The defense sought to be stricken out alleges that defendant was to receive a bonus of $10,500 for the loan, and that defendant rescinded the agreement on learning that this payment would make the agreement illegal and usurious. As plaintiff, the borrower, was a corporation, the usury laws of this State have no application to it. (Gen. Bus. Law, § 374; Moers v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, No. 1, 208 App. Div. 473; Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 N. Y. 665; MacQuoid v. Queens Estates, 143 App. Div. 134.) Moreover, an alleged usurer cannot claim that an agreement made by him is usurious, even though it is still executory. (Billington v. Wagoner, 33 N. Y. 31.) Motion granted.