From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yorkville Bus. Protective Corp. v. Friedman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jul 18, 1932
144 Misc. 325 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)

Opinion

July 18, 1932.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.

Irving Feldman, for the appellants.

Harry T. Lindauer, for the respondent.



The evidence clearly discloses that this plaintiff was engaged in the business of making discounts in violation of section 140 Banking of the Banking Law. ( Meserole Securities Co. v. Cosman, 253 N.Y. 130.) That it confined this business to persons who purchased stock from it should not be permitted to aid it. ( Proper Spirit Trading Corp. v. Schilowitz, 140 Misc. 171.) In Business Men's Mortgage Credit Corp. v. Dobjinsky ( 135 Misc. 628; affd., App. Term, Oct. 14, 1929) the evidence did not disclose that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of making discounts, but merely in that of lending money which of itself was not prohibited by statute.

Judgments reversed, with thirty dollars costs as of one appeal, and judgment directed for defendants, appellants, in each case, with costs.

All concur; present, LEVY, CALLAHAN and UNTERMYER, JJ.


Summaries of

Yorkville Bus. Protective Corp. v. Friedman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jul 18, 1932
144 Misc. 325 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)
Case details for

Yorkville Bus. Protective Corp. v. Friedman

Case Details

Full title:YORKVILLE BUSINESS PROTECTIVE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. DORA FRIEDMAN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jul 18, 1932

Citations

144 Misc. 325 (N.Y. App. Term 1932)
258 N.Y.S. 689

Citing Cases

Phillips v. Investors' Syndicate

The defendant cites the decisions of two of my learned colleagues: Business Men's Mortgage Credit Corp. v.…

Miller v. Discount Factors

The minority felt that a purchase as well as a loan at a discount violated the Banking Law. Subsequent cases…