Court Opinion

ID: 9954307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:02.573593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.368651
License: Public Domain

Libertas Funding LLC v CDM Plumbing Inc
               2024 NY Slip Op 30909(U)
                     March 19, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 534890/2023
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                    INDEX NO. 534890/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OF ~INGS: CiVIL tERM! COMMERCIAL PART 8
           .., - ---·-----·-·--- ----,------ -- .. --.-.---·--· ---x·
          LIBERTAS FUN.DING     LLC~
                                                  Plaintiff,            Decision and order

                          - against -                             tnde~ N¢. 5l4ijjO/2-023

          CDM PLUMBING INC OBA ROTO-ROOTER;
          CDM WATER RESTORATION   INC and
          MICHAEL THOMAS  MERZ;  DALE ANN- MERZ·,
                                           Defendants,                      March 19, 2024
          -------- ~-- .- . --- ~----~-----~ ·. - .· -- ... x
          'PRESENT: HON. LEON RUCI:IELSMAN                                  Motion Seq..    #1

                  The plaintiff has moved seeking summary judgement pursuant
           t.,q CPL·R §3212. argu.ing th.eie are nci questions ot· fact ·the

           d,efendants owe the money sought.          The plaintiff has also moved

          ·s·eeking to dismiss defendant's counterclaim s.              The de:f eI1dants

           h,ave opposed tilce rnotion,s.    Papers we.re submitted by the pa,rties

           and afte.r reviewing all the arguments thi.s court now makes the

           follo:wing determinatio n..

                   On Mc!.Y 10, 2023 and September 6, 2023,-the piaintiff a,

          merchant cash adv.ance funding provider entered into contracts
          ·with de·fendan ts who reside i rt Texa-s .      Pursuant to th~ a gre.ement s

           the plaintiff purchased $325,QbO of defendant's future receivable
           for $250,00'0 and $'130;.0-00 of defen.dartt' s- future receivabl:·es fo.r

           $13,0,, 000.   The defendants. . gµaranteed tp.e a.9r.1;=em:ents"    The

           plaintiff asserts the defe-ridants stopped rerilittanc~s _in November

           2023 arid now owe· $214·, 313'. 6-5.   Furthe.r, the_. plaintiff assert~. the

           defendant.bre ached the agreement PY by changing the designated

           barik account without Plaintiff's authorization and by placing a

                                                  1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                                 INDEX NO. 534890/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

          s.top payment on the· account.        This --action was ·c6mrnenc.ed an,d now

          the pl_aintiff seeks surpmary judgement arguing there can: be no
          questions of fact the defendants owe the amount outstanding and

          j_udgernent should ·b:e granted in the,ir favor.       The defE:mdan_t:s

          oppose tne motion arguing there are questions of fact which

          p-reclude a   suinmary· determinatio n at this time.·

                                    Conclusions of Law

                 Where: the material facts at issue in a ca.se are in dispute

          surtuna.ty judgment cannot be granted ( Zuckerman v. City of New

          York, 4"9 NYS2d 557, 427 NYS2"d 595 [1980]).          Gen·erally, it is for

          .the jury, the t:i:-ier of f:act to determine the legal c·a-use ·o_"f any

           injury, however, wht=re only one conclusion may be drawn from the

           £_-acts then the   question of leg-al cause ma"y be= decided by· the
           trial: court as a matter. of 1-aw (Marino v·. Jamison, 189 -·Ao.3-d 1021_,

           i36 NYS3d 324      [2d. Dept.,   2021).

                  Concerning establishing- any default,. it is w,ell sett;led
           tl'J.at "a.proper foundation for the admission of a business record

           must be provided by someone with personal. knowledge of the

           maker·' s- business practices ,and proc_edur(;;S"    (Cit.iban"k N. A. v .

          . Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861, 14 NYS3d 420 [2d Dept .. , 2015]).           Thus,

           where a party introduces evioencie= of' the ex.isteri.ce of J,.oans,

           pe;rsoncal guaran_t:.ees- and the defendant's failure to make payments

           according to the. terms of the ins_truments then summary judgement

                                                      2

                                                     2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                            INDEX NO. 534890/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

          is proper (see, JPMorgan Chase Bank N. A., v. Bauer, 92 AD3d 641,

          938 NYS2d 190 [2d Dept., 2012]) .         In this case the plaintiff

          submitted the affidavit of Ricky Palaci'o a customer service

          represent ative of the plaintiff .       He stated that he reviewed the

          plaintiff 's records in connectio n with the loans extended in this

          case.    He further stated that all the documents he reviewed were

          maintaine d in the regular course of business and all such records

          were made near their occurrenc e with someone who had knowledge at

           that time and that the plaintiff 's standard practice is to keep

           such records in the. ordinary course of l:msiness.      Thus, the

          plaintiff has establishe d the admissibi lity of the records relied

           upon since Mr. Palacio had knowledge and familiarit y of the

           plaintiff 's practic:;es and procedure s (see, Cadlerock Joint

           Venture L. P. v. Trombley:, 150 AD3d 957, 54 NYSJd 127 [2d Dept.,

           2017]),

                  The specific
                           .
                               record in
                                       .
                                         support of the motion seeking sµmmary

           judgement is remittanc e payment statement s which demonstra tes

           that certai.n payments due were never.£orw arded to the plaintiff

           ( see; NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 and Doc. No. 5) .      The ref ore, the proper

           .foundatio n for the admission of such document has been provided

           by Mr. Palacio who establish familiarit y with the record keeping

           pr_actices of the plaintiff ( ~ ; JPMorgan Chase Bank N. A. • v.

           Rads Grbtip Inc,, 88 AD3d 766, 930 NYS2d 89,9 [2d Dept., 2011]).

                  Therefore , the plaintiff establishe d its entitleme nt to

                                               3

------- ------- ------- -------3 -------
[* 3]                            of 4    ------- --······ ··-·--· ··-·
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/19/2024 04:24 PM                         INDEX NO. 534890/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

          summary judgement.

                The defendants insist the plaintiff has failed to eliminate

          all questions of fact.      However, upon the presentation of the

          evidence noted above, the plaintiff has s·ufficiently demonstrated

          funds were given to the de·fendants and such funds have not been

          fully returned.      The rernittence payments along with the affidavit

          of Mr. Palacio are sufficient to eliminate all questions of fact

           in this regard.     Further, although the defendants allude to the

           fact the contract is not valid oh the grounds of usury they make

          no such substantive arguments in opposition to the motion seeking

          summary judgement.

                Therefor.e, based on the foregoing, the motion seeking

          summary judgernent is granted.

                 So ordered.

                                       ENTER:

           DATED: March 19, 2024
                   Brooklyn N.Y,            Hon. Leon Ruch·
                                            llSC

                                                 4

                                                4 of 4
[* 4]