Legal Opinion

Florida Land Holding Corp. v. Burke

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1929PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.

The court quite agrees with the defendant that this action is brought upon the latter’s notes and not upon a deficiency judgment. The notes represent deferred payments of the purchase price of real property, and, therefore, the fact that they provide for a rate of interest in excess of six per cent does not render them usurious even if their validity is governed by the laws of this State. (McAnsh v. Blauner, 222 App. Div. 381; affd., 248 N. Y. 537; 39 Cyc. 928.) Nor is the situation affected by the circumstance that the notes also bear interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum after…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Diehl v. . BeckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. New York Life Insurance v. AitkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. McAnsh v. BlaunerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  4. McAnsh v. BlaunerNew York Court of Appeals · 1928

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Union Bank v. KrugerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  2. Mandelino v. FribourgNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Heelan v. Security National BankSuffolk County District Court · 1973
  4. Light v. GranatellNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
  5. Florida Land Holding Corp. v. BurkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API