Criminal Law · MBE-tested

David Shifer, Respondent, v. Agim Kelmendi, Appellant

248 A.D.2d 375669 N.Y.S.2d 851·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1998·NY

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

David Shifer, Respondent, v Agim Kelmendi, Appellant. [669 NYS2d 851] [MAJORITY] —In an action to foreclose on a mortgage, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 26, 1996, which, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $130,951.04. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The defendant’s contention that the subject loan is criminally usurious has already been considered and rejected by prior decision and order of this Court dated May 2, 1994 (see, Shifer v .Kelmendi, 204 AD2d 300; cf., People v Williams, 188 AD2d 573). The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.