Schussler v. Richards
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchmidt, J.
This is an action on a series of notes. The defendant interposes an answer alleging usury “ as a separate defense and as a counterclaim.” Under the present wording of section 262 of the Civil Practice Act it appears that an affirmative judgment need not be demanded. The nature of a counterclaim has not been changed by section 262 as amended in 1936 (L. 1936, ch. 324). Prior to that amendment an affirmative judgment had to be demanded on a counterclaim. Usury is a defense and under a proper showing of facts it may also be a basis of a counterclaim. The defendant’s contention appears to be that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Paretta v. White Acres Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1948
- Rappaport v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1960