From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horowitz v. Griggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1997
245 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 22, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims are reinstated.

Upon the record before us, questions of fact exist as to whether a certain fee charged by the plaintiff rendered the subject loan usurious ( see, Rumbaut v. Reinhart, 216 A.D.2d 551), whether the transaction was tainted by fraud, and whether the Federal Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1601) is applicable to the loan so as to entitle the appellant to the remedy of rescission.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Horowitz v. Griggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1997
245 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Horowitz v. Griggs

Case Details

Full title:HARRY HOROWITZ, Respondent, v. CLARENCE L. GRIGGS et al., Defendants and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 22, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 480

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Alvarez

The burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate "the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona…