BKNS Management LLC v. Frysta Management LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-03631
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In BKNS Management LLC v. Frysta Management LLC, Judge Cronan ordered supplemental briefs on usury, summary judgment, and consideration issues.
BKNS Management LLC and Frysta Management LLC, the parties required to file supplemental briefs.
What happened
BKNS Management LLC v. Frysta Management LLC concerns a promissory note, including a $125,000 late fee after default and the consideration stated in the note.
The court ordered each party to file a supplemental letter brief of no more than ten pages by April 9, 2025. The briefs must address whether the late fee counts as interest for criminal-usury purposes, whether valuing a future payment creates a factual dispute that prevents summary judgment, and whether the note's language about receiving value prevents Frysta from denying that it received consideration.
Judge John P. Cronan did not decide those issues in this order; he directed the parties to provide additional briefing.
The detailed version
- BKNS Management LLC v. Frysta Management LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03631
- John Cronan
- Mar. 26, 2025
Order
The court ordered BKNS Management LLC and Frysta Management LLC to file supplemental letter briefs by April 9, 2025. Each brief may be no more than ten pages.
Issues for supplemental briefing
1. The parties must address whether, after the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Adar Bays, LLC v. GeneSYS ID, Inc., the $125,000 post-default late fee should be treated as interest when deciding whether the promissory note is criminally usurious and therefore void from the beginning.
2. They must address whether resolving that question requires a fact finder to determine the value of the contingent future payment. The court also asked whether that issue creates a genuine dispute of material fact—a disagreement over facts important to the case that would prevent summary judgment.
3. They must address whether, under New York law, the note's statement that the amount given to Frysta was “for value received” prevents Frysta from denying receipt of the consideration stated in the note.
What the order decided
The order directed additional briefing and did not resolve the usury, factual-dispute, or consideration issues. It also did not state whether summary judgment should be granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.