Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v South Jersey Speed LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v South Jersey Speed LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32591(U) December 13, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 604673/16 Judge: Anna Anzalone Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREMI' COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK I'RESENT: I:Ionorshle Artnu R. Anzalone Justice of thc SuPreme Court TRTAL/IAS, PAIIT 26 NASSAU COUNTY MERCFIAN'f CASH AND CAPII-AI,' LLC' Plaintiff, Index No. 604673116 - against - Motion Seq. No.: 001 SOLITI'{ JERSEY SPEED Ll'C dlbla CAR AND AUDIO OF SOU'ftl JERSEY and RONALD MAKINO, Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion ....... . .. ...... . Plaintifl-s Memorandum of Law ....." " Affinlation in Opposition to Plaintifl-s Motion Def'endant's Menrorandurn of Lau' ""'- " ' Atliciavit Iteply Atfirmation ........'.... ' 2 """" "' 3 4 5 A -.'. all oi. Motion by the plaintiff for an ordcr, pursuantto CPI-R 321 l, disrnissing the clclendants' affirrnativc defenses' is granted' 'l'his actron was colrllrenced by the electronic filing of a sutlmons and corrrplainlonJune23,2016.|hecomplaintallegesthatonolaboutSepterrrber3, agreements ("the 2015 and November 11, 2015, the plaintiff entered into two Agreements,,)witlrdeferrdant'SouthJerseySpeedLLCd/b/aCarandAudioofSouth Jersey(..theCorporateDefendant''),bywhichtheCorporateDeferrdantsold -1- [* 2] $25,344.00ofitsbusirressreceivableshevenuetotheplaintiff,tobepaidtothe plaintilTfiomapelcentageoftheCorporateDefendant'sdailyrevenue,loranup- by the plaintifT' The lront sum of $19,800.00 paid to the Corporate Defendant defendant,RonaldMakino,signedtheAgreementsaSgualantorfortlreCol.porate Defendant rnade Defendant. The Complaint further alleges that the Corporate paymentslotaling$lT,458.44,butthatthedefendantshavebreachedtheAgreements byt'ailingtopaythebalanceof$7,885'56duetotheplaintiffundertheAgreements' answer includes the The defendants illed an answer on July 25'2016' The affir.mativedefenseofusury.'theplaintiffmovestostrikeallofthede|endants, upon docutnentary evidence alfinnative defenses fbr lailure to state a cause ofaction, and because the defendants' defenses are meritless' judgrnent distnissing onc or CPLI{ 321 1 (b) provides that a parly may move for moredefenses,onthegroundthatadefenseisnotstatedorhasnornerit.Aplainti|| movingtodismissanaffirmativedefensebearstheburderrofprovingthatthc affirmativedefenseiswithoutrneritasamatteroflaw.onsuchamotiontodismiss, theCoufimustliberallyconslruethepleadingsinfavorofthedefendantassertingthc favorable inference affirmativc def'enses and give that defendant the benelit ofevery 20161)' (Gonzalez v lF'ingate at Beacon,137 AD3d 747 lzd Dept which this action purports Defendants' answer alleges that the transaction upon -2- [* 3] to be based is a I90'40 usurious loan which violates Penal Law $190.40. Section o1' thePerralLawprovides,inrelevantpart,thatapersonisguiltyofcrirninalusuryif on a loan' he knowingly charges interest in excess of 25Yo tissentially,usurylawsareapplicableonlytoloansorforbearances,andil.tl-re v siskind, 170 AD2d 433 transaction is not a loan, there can be no usury (Donatelti Dept 1991 l)' Unless the Dept 1.9911; Kcrulmtrtt v Ho|ttwitz. 178 AD2d 632 l2d f2d be no usury (Transmeclitr principal sum advanced is rcpayable absolutely, there can Ilest. Co. v 33 E. 2000); 6l't York County St. Ilest. Corp.,184 Misc 2d 706 fsup Ct, New Pearl Capital Rivis --NYS3d-, VenttLres, I'I'C v rtDN Constr'' kc'' 3d -Misc Westchesler 2016 NY Slip Op 26344,2016 WL 6245103 [Sup Ct' County 2016|). 'fhe terrns of the Agreements specifically provide that the purchase price paid by the plaintiff ,,is not inlended to be, nor shall it be construed as, a ioan" fion-r the this Ianguagc is not plaintiff to the Corporate l)efendant (Agreements' $ '1)' While provide that the plaintitldererminative in and of itself' the Agreements further s right torepaymentisnotabsolutebecausetheAgreernentsspecifythatiftheCorporate the tact that it goes banklupt Def.endant has not violated the terrns of the Agreements, orgoesoulofbusinessshallnotbeconsideredabreachorobligatethegualantorto not absolute' the Agreements pay (Agreements, {4.4). Since payment is conditional' -)' [* 4] be usurious' do not constitute a loan and therefore cannot that the terms of the Agreements Moreover, r.r,'hile the defendants hypothesize couldresultinpaymentofcriminallycxcessiveinterest,thisisbasedupolrlllere speculation. The amount may plaintiff set an initial daily payment amount' but that the the daily avcrage revenues' and therefbrc be increased or decreased based upon durationoftherepaylnentperiodmayalsoincreaseordecrease'SincetheAgreements cannotbesaidtoconstttutealoanandsincethereisnoproofthattheplaintifl intendedtochargeimpemissibleinterest,thedefendants'aftirmativedefenseof usury must fail. the affirrnative defenses in Accordingly, the motion by the plaintiff to dismiss thc defendants' answer is granted' 'Ihis constitutes the decision and order of this Court' DATED: December 13, 2016 Mineola, New York ENTBR: HgqTffiffiEE} llEc 2 1 2016 I,IASsi\LJ CQUNTY COUNry CLERK'S OFFICE oc: I lon. Giuliano McDonnell & Porrone' l'LP Attorneys for Plaintiff A Anna R. Anzalcl [* 5] Merchant Cash ancl Capital, LLC Christophcr R. MurraY, l3sq i70 Old Country Road, Suite 608 Mineola, New York I 1501 (646) 328-0120 Amos Weinberg Attorney tbr I)efendant 49 Somerset Drive South Great Neck, NY 1 1020- I 82 (s 16) 829-3900 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.