Foreclosures—Since There Were Triable Issues of Fact with Respect to a Usury Affirmative Defense, Court Denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement—Borrower Argued That Certain Fees Were Unreasonable and Should Be Counted in Calculating the Interest Rate—"Whether a Transaction Constitutes a 'Cover for Usury' is a Question of Fact"

A plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action had made a motion to renew an earlier pre‑discovery motion for summary judgement and dismissal of the borrower's answer with affirmative defenses and for an order appointing a referee to hear and compute the amount due and owing by the borrower on two notes and mortgages. The subject property is a one family residential property. The defendant allegedly owed a principal amount of $499,990 based on a "first loan," and $250,000 based on a "second loan."

The borrower argued that both loans, and "particularly the second loan," were usurious. He contended that the "effective interest rate charged on each loan exceeded the civil usury limit of 16 percent, thus rendering each such loan void."