| Moyal v Sullo |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04154 [139 AD3d 644] |
| May 31, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| David Moyal, Suing Individually and on Behalf of
Circle Press, Inc., Plaintiffs, v Joseph Sullo, Respondent, Robert Malta et al., Appellants, et al., Nominal Defendant. |
Catafago Fini LLP, New York (Adam Sherman of counsel), for appellants.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about October 19, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants Robert Malta and GMD 444, LLC's (collectively Malta) motion for leave to amend their answer to add a usurious loan cross claim against defendant Joseph Sullo, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court properly denied the motion, because the proposed usurious loan cross claim is palpably without merit (see Gordon v Oster, 36 AD3d 525, 525 [1st Dept 2007]). The per annum interest rate on the note executed by Malta does not exceed the maximum per annum interest rate provided in either the civil usury statute or the relevant criminal usury statute (see General Obligations Law § 5-501 [civil]; Banking Law § 14-a [1] [civil]; Penal Law § 190.40 [criminal]; Blue Wolf Capital Fund II, L.P. v American Stevedoring, Inc., 105 AD3d 178, 182 [1st Dept 2013]).
We have considered Malta's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.