Summary
In Champion, the court determined that the agreement was not a loan because, as here, the defendant purchased a percentage of the plaintiff's future receivables for a specified advance minus fees.
Summary of this case from Womack v. Capital Stack, LLCOpinion
5995 Index 158692/16
03-15-2018
CHAMPION AUTO SALES, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. PEARL BETA FUNDING, LLC, Defendant–Respondent.
Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for appellants. DLA Piper, LLP, Baltimore, MD (Michael Bakhama of the bar of the State of Maryland, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Amos Weinberg, Great Neck, for appellants.
DLA Piper, LLP, Baltimore, MD (Michael Bakhama of the bar of the State of Maryland, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Kapnick, Kahn, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered June 16, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly dismissed the complaint seeking to vacate the judgment by confession. The evidence demonstrates that the underlying agreement leading to the judgment by confession was not a usurious transaction (see generally Giventer v. Arnow, 37 N.Y.2d 305, 309, 372 N.Y.S.2d 63, 333 N.E.2d 366 [1975] ; see Feld v. Apple Bank for Sav., 116 A.D.3d 549, 553, 984 N.Y.S.2d 319 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 908, 2014 WL 2936002 [2014] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' other challenges to the judgment by confession and find them unavailing.