By Connolly, J.P.; Maltese, Dowling, Landicino, JJ.
ALLEON CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL., res, v. SHERYAR CHOUDHRY, ET AL., app, ET AL., def — (Index No. 610648/18) Noel Munier, Mineola, NY, for appellants. Edward Stone Law P.C., New York, NY (Edward S. Stone and Jason Vanacour, pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Sheryar Choudhry, Tangent EHR, LLC, and AMSAC, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jerome C. Murphy, J.), entered March 2, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court entered September 16, 2019, denying that branch of those defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the subject loan was usurious. ORDERED that the order entered March 2, 2020, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff Alleon Capital Partners, LLC (hereinafter Alleon), as lender, entered into an agreement with the defendants Universal Medical, P.C., and All Family Medical, P.C., as borrowers, for a loan in the principal amount of $2,782,259.27. Due to certain fees and money placed into escrow, the borrowers received $2,360,200.75 from Alleon. Under the terms of the loan, the borrowers were to make payments to Alleon from the collection of certain receivables, which consisted of medical debts owned by the borrowers. The defendants Sheryar Choudhry, Tangent EHR, LLC, and AMSAC, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the appellants), were allegedly the billing agents for the loan. The receivables at issue had a value of over $5,000,000. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants, alleging, inter alia, that they failed to pay all amounts due and owing under the loan agreement. The appellants moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the loan was usurious, and the Supreme Court denied that branch of their motion. The appellants then moved for leave to renew and reargue that branch of their motion. By order entered March 2, 2020, the court, in effect, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the loan was usurious. This appeal followed.
