Summary
finding a special relationship where defendant-borrowers, experienced and sophisticated businessmen and lawyers, took advantage of plaintiff's long-standing friendship and trust in his attorney, one of the defendants, who drafted the original documents and set the financial terms that defendants later claimed were usurious
Summary of this case from Hufnagel v. GeorgeOpinion
February 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.).
The record reveals that the individual defendants, Abraham Mordowitz and Harry Skydell, both experienced and sophisticated businessmen licensed to practice law in this State, induced plaintiff to advance them $650,000 to further their real estate interests, by taking advantage of plaintiff's longstanding friendship and trust in his attorney, Mordowitz, and by promising him a "profit" and "fee" on his investment; that defendant Mordowitz then drafted the original documents and set the financial terms that defendants now claim are usurious; and that although defendants were aware of the legal rate of interest at the time they drafted the documents and borrowed the money, they did not so advise the plaintiff, nor did they advise him to seek independent counsel. A borrower, who, because of a fiduciary or other like relationship of trust with the lender, is under a duty to speak and who fails to disclose the illegality of the rate of interest he proposes, is estopped from asserting the defense of usury where the lender rightfully relies upon the borrower in making the loan (Hammond v. Marrano, 88 A.D.2d 758; Schaaf v Borsher, 82 A.D.2d 880). Accordingly, defendants should be estopped from asserting the defense of usury.
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.