418 Trading Corp. v. Oconefsky

Decision Date04 June 1963
Citation19 A.D.2d 593,240 N.Y.S.2d 956
Parties418 TRADING CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pearl OCONEFSKY, Lazar Oconefsky, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

I. Anolic, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

N. Carmen, New York City, for defendants-respondents.

Judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits and granting judgment to defendants on their counterclaim, affirmed with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice LORETO, at Special Term. All concur except STEUER and EAGER, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and grant judgment in favor of plaintiff in the following memorandum by EAGER, J.

EAGER, Justice (dissenting).

The judgment for defendants should be reversed on the law and on the facts, and judgment of foreclosure and sale directed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant wife and her attorney each testified that the agreement was that the loan was to be made to the Warren Hardware Corp., which was a corporation under the control of the individual defendants, and that such defendants were to guarantee payment of the same. Furthermore, the documents establish that this was the arrangement and that the defendants' bond and mortgage, which is the subject of this action, were executed to guarantee the payment of the loan. There was no evidence of any fraud, misrepresentation or undue pressure; and it being clear that the defendants voluntarily acceded to the arrangement, expressly made, whereby the loan was made to the corporation and whereby they as individuals guaranteed payment of the same, it is clear that the defense of usury was not available to them. (See Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N.Y. 319, 172 N.E. 521, 74 A.L.R. 205; Bradley v. Selengut, 269 App.Div. 209, 54 N.Y.S.2d 457; Werger v. Haines Corporation, Sup., 94 N.Y.S.2d 691, affd. 277 App.Div. 1108, 101 N.Y.S.2d 361, affd. 302 N.Y. 930, 100 N.E.2d 189; Uno Equities, Inc. v. Sutton Place View Corp. (Gold, J.), N.Y.L.J., April 17, 1962, affd. 18 A.D.2d 796; Kings Mercantile Co. v. Cooper, 199 Misc. 381, 100 N.Y.S.2d 754; Shapiro v. Weissman, 19 Misc.2d 407, 187 N.Y.S.2d 233.) 37 Misc.2d 745, 234 N.Y.S.2d 747.

STEUER, J., concurs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • North Broadway Funding Corp. v. Freed
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 24, 1974
    ...loan was actually made to him, and not the corporation, the affirmative defense of usury will be sustained (see 418 Trading Corp. v. Oconefsky, 19 A.D.2d 593, 240 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd., 14 N.Y.2d 676, 249 N.Y.S.2d 876, 198 N.E.2d 907; see, also, Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N.Y. 319, 324, 172 N.E. 5......
  • Leader v. Dinkler Management Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1967
    ...they had become bound. Viewed in this light, the case of 418 Trading Corp. v. Oconefsky (37 Misc.2d 745, 234 N.Y.S.2d 747, affd. 19 A.D.2d 593, 240 N.Y.S.2d 956, affd. 14 N.Y.2d 676, 249 N.Y.S.2d 876, 198 N.E.2d 907), heavily relied upon by the plaintiff, does not conflict with any of the e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT