Case Name: Mark Kaufman et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Hyman B. Horowitz et al., Respondents, and Steven Horowitz, Respondent-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-12-30
Citations: 178 A.D.2d 632
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mark Kaufman et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Hyman B. Horowitz et al., Respondents, and Steven Horowitz, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 178
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Mark Kaufman et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Hyman B. Horowitz et al., Respondents, and Steven Horowitz, Respondent-Appellant.

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to cancel a mortgage loan and related agreements as usurious, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered June 25, 1990, as denied their motion for summary judgment, and the defendant Steven Horowitz cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him and the cross claim against him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint insofar as it is asserted against Steven Horowitz and the cross claim against him are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiffs.
There are no triable issues of fact in this case (see, Kaufman v Horowitz, 178 AD2d 632 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Copertino, JJ., concur.