Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Levitt, J.).
The court properly dismissed the sixth affirmative defense to this foreclosure action since defendants' unsubstantiated allegations failed to establish that the loan was usurious (see, Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728) and since, in any event, plaintiff is exempt from the State's usury laws ( 12 U.S.C. § 1735f-7). As to the fourth affirmative defense the documents sufficiently disclosed the term of the loan, and defendants, who failed to read the plain language of the loan documents and had the means of comprehending their terms by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, were properly precluded from claiming fraudulent inducement (see, Marine Midland Bank v. Embassy E., 160 A.D.2d 420, 422).
Finally, as the mortgage and note had only a one year term in violation of General Regulations of the Banking Board (3 N.Y.CRR) § 82.2 (e), the court properly reformed the loan documents to provide for a balloon payment mortgage of three years. Defendants have presented no reason to increase the scope of the court's reformation.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.