Principis Capital, LLC v. I Do, Inc.
| Citation | 201 A.D.3d 752,160 N.Y.S.3d 325 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2018–12193,Index No. 517860/17 |
| Parties | PRINCIPIS CAPITAL, LLC, appellant, v. I DO, INC., et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Platzer, Swergold, Levine, Goldberg, Katz & Jaslow, LLP, New York, NY (Andrew S. Muller of counsel), for appellant.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), dated May 29, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims are granted.
On or about March 7, 2017, the plaintiff, Principis Capital, LLC and the defendant I Do, Inc. (hereinafter I Do), entered into a written agreement (hereinafter the agreement), pursuant to which I Do sold and the plaintiff purchased an interest in I Do's future receivables for the sum of $38,429.39 (hereinafter the purchase price). In exchange for the purchase price, I Do authorized the plaintiff to debit from I Do's bank account a percentage of I Do's monthly sales revenue, until the plaintiff received the sum of $52,456.12 (hereinafter the purchased amount). I Do also agreed that in the event of its default under the agreement, the full uncollected purchased amount would become immediately due and payable in full to the plaintiff. The defendant Michael Bartels executed a personal guaranty of performance of all the representations, warranties, and covenants made by I Do in the agreement. On or about March 15, 2017, the plaintiff paid I Do the purchase price.
In September 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, alleging that in or about August 2017, I Do, after making approximately $10,183.22 in payments, defaulted and made no further payments. In their answer, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had paid I Do the sum of $38,429.39, I Do had executed the agreement, and I Do had paid approximately $10,183.22 to the plaintiff, but they denied other material allegations of the complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. In an order dated May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
On its motion, the plaintiff submitted proof of an executed written contract and proof of the defendants’ breach, which the defendant did not dispute. If, however, the agreement was found to be a loan, criminal usury would be a defense to its enforcement, rendering it void (see Davis v. Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 194 A.D.3d 516, 517, 150 N.Y.S.3d 2 ). "The rudimentary element of usury is the existence of a loan or forbearance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tender Loving Care Homes Inc. v. Reliable Fast Cash, LLC.
...loan and where there is no loan, there can be no usury, however unconscionable the contract may be." Principis Capital, LLC v. I Do, Inc. , 201 A.D.3d 752, 160 N.Y.S.3d 325 (2d Dept. 2022) . In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that the contract is exactly what it purport......
-
Fleetwood Servs. v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC
... ... responded similarly to a request for a payment reduction by ... J.B. Plumbing & Heating of Virginia, Inc., a small ... family-owned company located in Virginia. When the ... merchant's owner called Richmond in December 2015 and ... pursuant to reconciliations, then the term of the agreement ... is necessarily not finite. See Principis Cap., LLC v. I ... Do, Inc. , 160 N.Y.S.3d 325, 327 (2d Dep't 2022). And ... “[i]f the term is indefinite, then it ‘is ... ...
- People v. Morancis
-
Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. EBF Holdings, LLC
...(2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy.” Principis Cap., 160 N.Y.S.3d at 326-27 LG Funding, 122 N.Y.S.3d at 311); see also Davis v. Richmond Cap. Grp., 150 N.Y.S.3d 2, 4 (App. Div. 2021) (finding a merchant c......
-
SDNY Is The New Worst Place To Litigate MCA Disputes
...purchased amount is delivered from the merchant's actual receivables. New York State courts, including Principis Cap., LLC v. I Do, Inc., 201 A.D.3d 752 (2d Dept. 2022), established a useful tripartite test for determining whether MCA contracts met the criteria for being true purchases cont......