The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 were read on this motion to/for INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71 were read on this motion to/for VACATE — DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION In this action for damages purportedly resulting from usury, breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, Plaintiff Frank Fraley (“Plaintiff’) moves, in Motion Sequence No. 002, to restrain Defendant Black Star Line Realty Corp. (“Defendant”) from taking or attempting to take possession of a property located at 202 Spencer Street in Brooklyn (“Property”) and for an order directing the Office of the City Register to remove a deed recorded on May 5, 2023 which transferred title of the Property from Plaintiff to Defendant. In Motion Sequence No. 003, Defendant moves to vacate the Court’s December 15, 2022 Decision and Order finding it in default and seeks dismissal of the action. The motions are consolidated for disposition. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this action, Plaintiff owned the Property, a two-family home in Bedford-Stuyvesant, with his now-deceased mother, Ollie Fraley (collectively, “the Fraleys”). In December 2019, the parties agreed to an arrangement whereby Defendant loaned the Fraleys $950,000 to be repaid with interest within two years, and, as collateral, the Fraleys signed a Deed transferring title of the Property to Defendant, which was to be held in escrow during the term of the loan. According to Defendant’s papers, “[t]he purpose of the Note was to provide Plaintiff capital to make repairs to the Property. It was the intent of the Parties that upon completing the repairs to the Property, Plaintiff and his mother would refinance the Property and repay Defendant the principal amount of the Note along with any interest thereon” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 48, “Chilliest aff.”
7-8). On December 6, 2019, the Fraleys signed a note which provided that the loan matured on December 5, 2020 with an option to renew for an additional year (NYSCEF Doc. No. 53, “Note”). The loan was subject to a 13 percent interest rate in the first year and a 15 percent rate in the second year (id.). The Fraleys also signed the deed of sale (NYSCEF Doc. No. 55, “Deed”) and a document entitled “Escrow Agreement” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56, “Escrow Agreement”). The Escrow Agreement provides that in the event the Fraleys failed to satisfy the Note within the requisite period, Defendant “shall have all legal rights to record the Deed in lieu of payment of the outstanding debt payable in accordance with the Note. In the event that [Defendant] records the Deed, then the Note shall be considered satisfied and neither party shall have any further action, right or obligation to one another” (id. at 1[e]). The Escrow Agreement is signed by Plaintiff and his mother but is not signed by anyone on Defendant’s behalf. Anthony Chilliest, Esq. (“Escrow Agent”), who represented Defendant in its corporate formation and in connection with this arrangement, signed the Escrow Agreement as the Escrow Agent. In an affidavit annexed to Defendant’s papers, the Escrow Agent explains, “the loan was funded into my firm’s trust account. Plaintiff and his mother were authorized to draw down any amounts needed” (Chilliest aff. 22). He maintains that Plaintiff made three draws totaling $105,000, and that he paid approximately $150,000 from the account directly to Plaintiff’s contractor. These draws do not appear to be in dispute. The Escrow Agent also states that he disbursed $571,359.61 to satisfy an existing mortgage on the property (id. 26). According to Plaintiff, that wire transfer was returned, and the mortgage was never satisfied (NYSCEF Doc. No. 68,
