Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Order to show Cause/ Notice of Motion and Affidavits / Affirmations annexed 1 Answering Affidavits/ Affirmations Reply Affidavits/ Affirmations Memoranda of Law Other Decision / Order Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/ Order of the Court is as follows: The instant motion by plaintiff to strike defendant’s answer and for summary judgment seeking the remaining balance of a 2018 retail instalment contract financing defendant’s purchase of an automobile is denied, and the Court instead grants summary judgment to defendant dismissing this action pursuant to CPLR 3212(b). CPLR 3212(b) provides that “if it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a cross-motion.” Merritt Hill Vineyards, Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 106, 110 (1984). “Thus, under CPLR 3212(b) the court may, in its discretion, search the record and grant summary judgment to” a non-moving party, such as defendant in the instant action. West 152 Assoc., LP v. Gassama, 65 Misc. 3d 1218(A), *5 (Civ. Ct., New York Co. 2019). The Court need not provide notice to the parties that it intends to search the record. See, 205 W. 147th St., LLC v. Daub, Index No. 81704/17, 2018 NYLJ LEXIS 3753, *13 (Civ. Ct., New York Co. Oct. 12, 2018) (collecting authorities). Here, notwithstanding that defendant did not submit written opposition to the instant motion, nor file any cross-motion, the Court’s review of the papers reveals a loan agreement that insidiously violates the clear public policy of New York to protect New Yorkers from usurious lenders through the sham use of a retail instalment contract to charge illegally high interest, and cannot be enforced in a New York court.1 Accordingly, plaintiff has not (and indeed cannot) establish a claim for which relief can be granted. The Contract and Proceedings in this Action According to plaintiff, “[t]he parties entered into a Retail Installment Contract on or about September 14, 2018 for the purchase of a 2012 Mercedes-Benz C Class.” (Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts, 3). “The terms of the Contract called for a 22.99 percent annual percentage rate (“APR”) on the amount financed of $15,844.87, resulting in…sixty (60) consecutive monthly payments of $446.58,” commencing on October 14, 2018. (Affidavit of Sandi Ostler in Support, 5 and Ex. B).2 With interest and fees, the total cost of the vehicle — which had 113,464 miles on it when sold — was $29,294.80, from a cash sale price of $14,400.00. (Ostler Aff. in Supp., Ex. B). Defendant soon fell behind in making payments, and plaintiff repossessed the vehicle on or about November 16, 2021. (Ostler Aff. in Supp., Ex. C). Plaintiff subsequently notified defendant that it intended to sell the vehicle by notice dated December 12, 2021, and did so by selling the vehicle at auction (for $4,500.00) on January 28, 2022. (Ostler Aff. in Supp., Exs. C and D). Plaintiff then sought the alleged remaining balance of the loan and associated fees from defendant, and later commenced the instant action. (Ostler Aff. in Supp.,
