Opinion
November 28, 2000.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 18, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint and nullified the subject note, guarantee and liens, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Roger J. Bernstein, for plaintiff-appellant.
Roy H. Carlin, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias, JJ.
Reliable, albeit contested, evidence supports all of the trial court's essential factual conclusions (see, Daley v. Related Cos., 236 A.D.2d 340,lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 803), and appellant's self-serving view of the evidence affords no reason to disturb the determination on appeal (see,Castillo v. New York City Hous. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 55, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 761). Evidence supports the court's conclusion that the subject note was not supported by consideration for which the parties bargained (see, e.g., Wood Realty Trust v. N. Storonske Cooperage Co., 229 A.D.2d 821, 823), that the rate was usurious under the circumstances, and that plaintiff intended to extend a loan at the rate expressed in the instrument (see, Hammond v. Marrano, 88 A.D.2d 758, 759). There is no evidence that the 1992 accounting did not satisfy the letter of the so-called closing agreement (see, Poley v. Sony Music, 163 Misc.2d 127, 131), and, in any event, we agree with the trial court that the agreement is unenforceable because it lacks essential terms (cf., Taussig v. Pines Enter., 56 A.D.2d 548, 550, appeal dismissed 42 N.Y.2d 824). Plaintiff's demand for an accounting sounding in equity was properly rejected since there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that defendants owed plaintiff a duty based on a special relationship (see, Kaminsky v. Kahn, 23 A.D.2d 231, 235). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.