September 23, 1927.
Tetelman Tetelman, for the plaintiff.
Robert E. Moffett, for the defendant.
The action is for breach of a written contract by which defendant it is claimed agreed to lend plaintiff $40,000. The defense sought to be stricken out alleges that defendant was to receive a bonus of $10,500 for the loan, and that defendant rescinded the agreement on learning that this payment would make the agreement illegal and usurious. As plaintiff, the borrower, was a corporation, the usury laws of this State have no application to it. (Gen. Bus. Law, § 374; Moers v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, No. 1, 208 A.D. 473; Rosa v. Butterfield, 33 N.Y. 665; MacQuoid v. Queens Estates, 143 A.D. 134.) Moreover, an alleged usurer cannot claim that an agreement made by him is usurious, even though it is still executory. ( Billington v. Wagoner, 33 N.Y. 31.) Motion granted.