Opinion
February 25, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
The agreements sued upon are clearly instruments for the payment of money only, since repayment of the amounts owed is not conditional, and is required at a fixed maturity date ( see, Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, 88 N.Y.2d 437, 443-444). Contrary to defendant's claim, restrictions upon usurious loans are not applicable to the loans here at issue since the amounts involved were over $250,000 ( see, General Obligations Law § 5-501 Gen. Oblig. [6] [a]). Finally, the nail and mail service upon defendant complied with CPLR 308 (2), and, in any event, the second service mooted any questions concerning service irregularities.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Tom, JJ.