From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marder v. Levin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the plaintiffs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to determine the amount due to the plaintiffs under the promissory note and for entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

Under New York's choice of law rule, the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation, or the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute, should be applied ( see, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 22 N.Y.2d 12). Here, the plaintiffs loaned the defendant $200,000 to finance a housing development in New Jersey. The note sued upon apparently was executed in New Jersey, the note and the mortgage given as collateral were secured by property located in New Jersey, and the note was drafted and witnessed by a New Jersey attorney. Accordingly, on this record, New Jersey had the most significant contacts with the instant transaction ( see, e.g., Tuthill Fin. v. Cartaya, 133 A.D.2d 343) and, under New Jersey law, the transaction was not usurious ( see, NJ Stat Annot 31:1-1 [e] [1]; 2C:21-19 [a] [2]; Conner Gen. Contr. v. Rols Capital Co., 145 A.D.2d 452).

Because the plaintiffs met their burden of proof for recovery on the promissory note ( see, e.g., Colonial Commercial Corp. v Breskel Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 539; Bank of N.Y. v. Sterlington Common Assocs., 235 A.D.2d 448), and the defendant failed to establish the existence of a material issue of fact as to liability on the promissory note, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted ( see, e.g, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. RGB Intl Prop., 214 A.D.2d 603). However, since there was a dispute as to the amount due on the promissory note, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, inter alia, to determine the amount due.

Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marder v. Levin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Marder v. Levin

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD MARDER et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. ALEXANDER LEVIN…

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

Date published: Nov 17, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 344

Citing Cases

Sharbat v. Weiser

Defendant does not contest that the alleged 18% interest rate would be legal under Israeli law. In cases…

Lukezic v. Royal Bank of Canada

The agreement between WHW and defendant provides that it shall be construed in accordance with Ontario law.…