In Funding Group, Inc., v. Water Chef, Inc., 19 Misc 3d 483, 852 NYS2d 736 (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2008), the defendant had negotiated with the plaintiffs a $ 25,000 loan with interest amounting to 120% per year, plus penalties for late payment. In that case, the defendant paid back the principal, interest and penalties over the course of several months past the due date. The plaintiffs sued to enforce a provision of the loan which provided for the transfer of stock to plaintiffs if the loan was not paid on time. The defendant sought to dismiss the motion on the ground that the loan was usurious, and counter-claimed for summary judgment seeking to recover the illegal interest and penalties it had paid on the loan. The Funding Group Court conducted a two-step analysis of the situation. First, it looked at the loan and found that the defendant had proved that the loan was usurious. Plaintiffs then attempted to negate the usury finding by alleging that the parties shared a special relationship which would establish an exception to the usury defense. However, the Funding Group Court found that no special relationship existed, because the plaintiffs did not establish that the defendant induced him to rely on the legality of the transaction, or make representations intended to influence him to his detriment. Id. at 489. Since there was neither a special relationship, nor was the transaction a joint venture, the Court granted that part of defendant's motion seeking the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. As for defendant's counterclaim seeking repayment of the illegal fees and penalties it had paid, the Court stated: "Defendant's contention that this court must declare the loan void as a matter of law is without merit." Id. at 491. The Court stated that while GOL 5-511 voids a loan that violates the civil usury statute, it found that there is no specific statutory authority for voiding a loan that violates the criminal usury statute. Id. The Court denied defendant's request to recover the payments it made over the legal limit, and refused to grant attorneys' fees as well.