From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloom v. Trepmal Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1968
29 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Summary

In Bloom, a 1968 state court decision cited by Manfra, the Second Department held (without discussion) that a provision in a note fixing interest at a rate above 25% annually upon default or maturity was valid and enforceable.

Summary of this case from Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC

Opinion

April 8, 1968


In an action against the maker and a guarantor of a note, the cross appeals are from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 19, 1967 after a nonjury trial, which adjudged that plaintiff recover of defendants the amount of the note ($5,000), interest at the rate of 6% from January 1, 1964, counsel fees and costs as taxed. The appeal by the plaintiff is from so much of the judgment as limited interest to 6%. The appeal by the individual defendant is from so much of the judgment as granted recovery of any sum in excess of $5,000. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by striking out the award of interest, which is at the rate of 6% from January 1, 1964, and by substituting therefor a provision awarding interest at the rate of 2% a month from January 29, 1964; and case remitted to the court below for the entry of an amended judgment in accordance herewith. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. The note provided for interest at the rate of 1 3/4% per month payable in advance. It also provided that "Interest in [sic] the indebtedness evidenced by this note after default or maturity shall be due and payable at the rate of (2)% per month." The provision fixing interest at the rate of 2% per month after default or maturity was a valid and enforcible provision ( Union Estates Co. v. Adlon Constr. Co., 221 N.Y. 183; Slavin v. Myles Realty Co., 227 N.Y. 51). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bloom v. Trepmal Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1968
29 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

In Bloom, a 1968 state court decision cited by Manfra, the Second Department held (without discussion) that a provision in a note fixing interest at a rate above 25% annually upon default or maturity was valid and enforceable.

Summary of this case from Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC
Case details for

Bloom v. Trepmal Construction Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MURRAY BLOOM, Appellant-Respondent, v. TREPMAL CONSTRUCTION CORP.…

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Warren Elec. Supply Inc. v. Davidson

In the absence of any proof of high-pressure sales tactics by plaintiff, inexperience of defendants or any…

Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp. v. Gristedes's Foods

Contrary to defendants' contention, this charge is enforceable, given the absence of any evidentiary showing…