Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant's contention that the subject loan is criminally usurious has already been considered and rejected by prior decision and order of this Court dated May 2, 1994 (see, Shifer v. Kelmendi, 204 A.D.2d 300; cf., People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.