New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-511 (2026)

Usurious contracts void

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5-511. Usurious contracts void. 1. All bonds, bills, notes,
assurances, conveyances, all other contracts or securities whatsoever,
except bottomry and respondentia bonds and contracts, and all deposits
of goods or other things whatsoever, whereupon or whereby there shall be
reserved or taken, or secured or agreed to be reserved or taken, any
greater sum, or greater value, for the loan or forbearance of any money,
goods or other things in action, than is prescribed in section 5-501,
shall be void, except that the knowingly taking, receiving, reserving or
charging such a greater sum or greater value by a savings bank, a
savings and loan association or a federal savings and loan association
shall only be held and adjudged a forfeiture of the entire interest
which the loan or obligation carries with it or which has been agreed to
be paid thereon. If a greater sum or greater value has been paid, the
person paying the same or his legal representative may recover from the
savings bank, the savings and loan association or the federal savings
and loan association twice the entire amount of the interest thus paid.
  2. Except as provided in subdivision one, whenever it shall
satisfactorily appear by the admissions of the defendant, or by proof,
that any bond, bill, note, assurance, pledge, conveyance, contract,
security or any evidence of debt, has been taken or received in
violation of the foregoing provisions, the court shall declare the same
to be void, and enjoin any prosecution thereon, and order the same to be
surrendered and cancelled.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Roopchand v. Mohammed, 2017 NY Slip Op 7476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roopchand v. Mohammed, 2017 NY Slip Op 7476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× ““A usurious contract is void and relieves the borrower of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon” (Venables v Sagona, 85 AD3d at 905 ; see General Obligations Law § 5-511; Seidel v 18 E.”

Seidel v. 18 East 17th Street Owners, Inc., 598 N.E.2d 7 (NY 1992). · cites it 2× “” (General Obligations Law § 5-511 [2].) The consequences to the lender of a usurious transaction can be harsh: the borrower is relieved of all further payment —not only interest but also outstanding principal, and any mortgages securing payment are cancelled.”

Abir v. Malky, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 2× “A transaction is usurious under civil law when it imposes an annual interest rate exceeding 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; Banking Law § 14-a [1]), and is usurious under criminal law when it imposes an annual interest rate exceeding 25% (see Penal Law §§ 190.”

Oliveto Holdings, Inc. v. Rattenni, 110 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “endant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside the decision and for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the subject mortgage loan was usurious is granted, the complaint is dismissed, and the order is modified accordingly; and it is further, Ordered that the…”

Szerdahelyi v. Harris, 490 N.E.2d 517 (NY 1986). “Analysis starts with an understanding of General Obligations Law §§ 5-511 and 5-513.”

O'Donovan v. Galinski, 62 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “Inasmuch as the law does not permit an action by a lender on a usurious loan (see General Obligations Law § 5-511; Seidel v 18 E.”

Szerdahelyi v. Harris, 110 A.D.2d 550 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 4× “A lender who charges a rate of interest in excess of that authorized by Banking Law § 14-a, who tenders back the excess over the permissible rate of interest, is thereby relieved of the penalties provided in General Obligations Law §§ 5-511, 5-513. Indeed, any other…”

In re Merhi, 518 B.R. 705 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2014). “it made no change to the provisions of General Obligations Law § 5-511 which declares a usurious loan ‘void’ and orders ‘the same to be surrendered and canceled.”

Blue Wolf Capital Fund II, L.P. v. Am. Stevedoring, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “Since ASI has successfully asserted criminal usury as an affirmative defense, the loan transaction and the associated note, loan agreement, and collateral agreement are void and unenforceable (see General Obligations Law § 5-511 [unless lender is bank or savings and loan…”

Fred Schutzman Co. v. Park Slope Advanced Med., PLLC, 128 A.D.3d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). “Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, even though the defendants in this case would have been precluded from interposing the defense of usury if the note had not been criminally usurious, the note imposed an annual interest rate in excess of 16%, and since that rate was more…”

Tides Edge Corp. v. Cent. Fed. Sav., 151 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 4× “In an action to recover money damages under Banking Law § 108 and General Obligations Law § 5-511, and for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.”

In Re Higgins, 270 B.R. 147 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001). “Erickson responds that the Higginses waived their usury defense when they gave him a Confession of Judgment, and that the doctrine of res judicata bars review of the Confession of Judgment.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

— N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-511(1) — 1 case

DarkPulse, Inc. v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

— N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-511(2) — 1 case

Bakis v. Levitin, 2004 NY Slip Op 50542(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty. 2004).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.