BREST v. KLEIDMAN (2002)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 19, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Relying on Eikenberry v. Adirondack Spring Water, Co., 65 N.Y.2d 125, 490 N.Y.S.2d 484, 480 N.E.2d 70, which permitted a lender to recover under the parties' original valid loan agreement even though two subsequent agreements extending the maturity date of the note were declared void for charging a civilly usurious rate of interest, the motion court properly rejected defendant's argument that the entire loan agreement between the parties should be declared void based upon a post-default extension of the original loan, alleged by defendant to charge a criminally usurious rate of interest.   The principle that an obligation valid at its inception is not invalidated or tainted with usury by a subsequent usurious transaction applies regardless of whether the subsequent transaction is civilly or criminally usurious.   Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 580, 446 N.Y.S.2d 917, 431 N.E.2d 278, in which issues of fact were found as to whether the loan agreement there involved was criminally usurious from its inception, does not require a contrary conclusion.