Osgood Mach, Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 595 N.Y.S.2d 919, 612 N.E.2d 277, 284-85 (1993)) (citation omitted). In determining whether a foreign law is offensive to New York’s public policy, courts should look to “the State’s Constitution, statutes and judicial decisions.” Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am.,. Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 491 N.Y.S.2d 90,480' N.E.2d 679, 688 (1985). A number of cases have applied New York law—despite the parties’ choice of another forum’s law—because New York’s usury prohibition constitutes a fundamental public policy. See Am. Equities Grp., 2004 WL 870260, at *8 (“New York has a strong public policy against interest rates which exceed 25%, which policy must be enforced.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); In re McCorhill Publ’g, Inc., 86 B.R. 783, 793 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Assih, 893 N.Y.S.2d at 446 (“New York has a
holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey recognizing that an insurance contract will generally be enforced as written unless to do so would violate the law or public policy holding that enforcing new jersey law would violate new yorks strong public policy against interest rates which exceed 25 which policy must be enforced recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller