From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pyrka v. 38th St. Summit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 1991
173 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 14, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


This is one of several actions that have arisen out of a transaction whereby a building at 242 West 38th Street, in Manhattan, was acquired by a partnership, transferred to a related corporation, and then sold to an unrelated corporation. Allegedly, at closing the partnership, one of the partners, or both, arranged for financing that was either funded or guaranteed by third-party plaintiff Sant'Andrea and a corporation of which she was a principal. As part of the consideration for this transaction, Ms. Sant'Andrea received a lease for the 14th floor of the building. She has maintained that the lease mistakenly excluded an oral agreement with defendant Iraqui that the floor would be subleased and she would retain all rent in excess of $500 per month.

On renewal, the IAS court properly found that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether or not this oral agreement existed, the terms having been admitted by defendant Iraqui in his deposition, as well as various principals of the remaining defendants in this and related actions. Nevertheless, the IAS court properly found a triable issue of fact based on an assertion by the defendants of affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on usury. Allegedly, the loan was at 24% annual interest, with additional "bonuses" in excess of $17,000, raising a triable issue of fact on usury (see, A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v Fariello, 164 A.D.2d 973). Triable issues of fact exist with respect to the exact nature of the loan and the exact identity of the borrowers and lenders, precluding summary judgment. Since usury is now the primary issue in the instant litigation, there is also a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the third-party plaintiff had the intent to commit criminal usury, criminal intent being a matter determined according to circumstances (People v Dellipizzi, 61 A.D.2d 961).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of the parties, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Pyrka v. 38th St. Summit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 1991
173 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Pyrka v. 38th St. Summit Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JAN PYRKA et al., Plaintiffs, v. 38TH ST. SUMMIT CORP. et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: May 14, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 679