Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1989–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn Corp.green2 sentences2016It is purely a matter of private right and does not involve any considerations of public policy ( Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp ., 76 AD2d 646, 649, mod on other grounds 54 NY2d 580). 2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 2 | 2 |
Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn Corp.green2 sentences2016It is purely a matter of private right and does not involve any considerations of public policy ( Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp ., 76 AD2d 646, 649, mod on other grounds 54 NY2d 580). 2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 2 |
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. v. Fierogreen1 sentence2025The Court further found that defendants had stated valid defenses to the motion and, contrary to legal procedure, plaintiffs [*2]motion sought legal relief that was tantamount to partial summary judgment, but without their filing a summary judgment motion (CPLR 3212). </p> <p>Turning to the branch of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint upon the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it is well settled that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a waivable defense, and it may be raised at any time in the course of litigation (<i>see Financial Indus Regulatory | 1 | 1 |
Feldman v. Torresgreen2 sentences2016The long-standing rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense ( Feldman v Torres , 34 Misc 3d 47, 49 [App Term 2nd, 11th, & 13th Jud Dist]). 2016The long-standing rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense ( Feldman v Torres , 34 Misc 3d 47, 49 [App Term 2nd, 11th, & 13th Jud Dist]). | 1 | 1 |
Central Funding Co. v. Deglingreen1 sentence2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
Billington v. . Wagonergreen1 sentence2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
Central Funding Co. v. Deglingreen1 sentence2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
Pataki v. New York State Assemblygreen1 sentence2006Lack of standing is a waivable defense (see Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75, 88 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of NY v. State of NY
green
1 sentence2016Nevertheless, capacity, a waivable defense, was concededly waived here (see City of New York, 86 NY2d at 292 ). 2 1 would reject the Fourth Department’s interpretation of our case law as requiring the demonstration of an additional, *269 undefined “personhood” requirement as a prerequisite to sue on due process grounds. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Howard v. Kirkpatrick
green
1 sentence2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Le Vine v. Flynn
neutral
1 sentence2011The longstanding rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense (see Billington v Wagoner, 33 NY 31, 33-34 [1865]; see also Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp., 76 AD2d 646 [1980], mod and affd on other grounds, 54 NY2d 580 [1981]; Howard v Kirkpatrick, 263 App Div 776 [1941]), and where the defense of usury has been waived, defendants have thereafter been precluded from raising it as a defense (see Le Vine v Flynn, 231 AD2d 555 [1996]; see also Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, 674 [1979], affd 48 NY2d 964 [1979]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People ex rel. Wade v. Berry
green
1 sentence1989Although courts of the State have held that "the Statute of Limitations defense is not a nonwaivable constitutional or jurisdictional right” (People v Dickson, supra, at 495 ), those courts have simply held it was a waivable defense at trial or upon a plea of guilty to the offense charged. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.