Legal Opinion
King v. American Home Sales Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 12, 1962PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*933In our opinion, the plaintiffs failed to establish usury. The alleged claim of a 10% usurious bonus effected by a blanket charge for closing fees was not shown by clear and convincing proof. Plaintiffs did not contest the reasonableness of any of the cumulated charges, and unsupported proof of overcharge was not in and by itself evidence of usury (Jefferson Tit. & Mtge. Corp. v. Dempsey, 153 Misc. 32, 35-36, affd. 242 App. Div. 626, mod. on other grounds 266 N. Y. 190). If the amount of such expenses was exaggerated or misrepresented, such misconduct, while it may have been a fraud and may…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thurston v. . CornellNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Morton v. . ThurberNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Del Rubio v. DuchesneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Guggenheimer v. . GeiszlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Jefferson Title & Mortgage Corp. v. DempseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Durante Bros. And Sons, Inc. v. Flushing National Bank, Jack Farber and Richard GelmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Ludlum Corporation Pension Plan Trust v. Matty's Superservice, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat. BankDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1986