In Seidel v. 18 East 17th Street Owners, Inc. (79 NY2d 735 [1992]) for her initial outlay of $150,000, plaintiff realized a return of at least $312,000 within four years. Any reliance on the transaction was to plaintiff's benefit, not her detriment, and on that basis the court ultimately rejected the plaintiff's estoppel argument. In Seidel, the Court reasoned: "The Appellate Divisions, and the majority of states to consider the issue, have recognized that a borrower may be estopped from interposing a usury defense when, through a special relationship with the lender, the borrower induces reliance on the legality of the transaction (see, Abramovitz v. Kew Realty Equities, Inc., 180 AD2d 568 [1st Dept], lv denied 80 NY2d 753; Schaaf v. Borsher, 82 AD2d 880, 440 N.Y.S.2d 312 [2d Dept]; Angelo v. Brenner, 90 AD2d 131 [3d Dept]; Hammond v. Marrano, 88 AD2d 758 [4th Dept]; Annotation, Usury--Borrower's Initiation, 16 ALR3d 510, 513-516). We endorse such a rule. Otherwise, a borrower could void the transaction, keep the principal, and "achieve a total windfall, at the expense of an innocent person, through his own subterfuge and inequitable deception" (Angelo v. Brenner, 90 AD2d 131, 133, 457 N.Y.S.2d 630, supra)."