Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
.....................................................................................
GLOBAL HORIZON FUNDING LLC, Index No. 652121/2023
Plaintiff REPLY MEMORANDUM
OF LAW
-against-
PRESTIGE TRUCKING GLOBAL L.L.C. and
STEVEN BADRU
Defendants
.......................................................................................
POINT ONE REPLY: THE AGREEMENT IS NOT UNCONSIOUSABLE AND IS
ENFORCEABLE
Plaintiff strongly denies that the Act has been violated. Further, mere minor infractions
that are falsely alleged by the Defendant do not rise to the level of unconscionability that void
the agreement. There is nothing in the statue or case law supporting Defendant’s attempt to
invalidate the agreement based on those violations, which is why the Defendant through his
attorney was unable to find a single case supporting his position to invalidate the agreement. We
maintain that the reason neither the Defendant’s nor the Plaintiff’s attorney was able to find a
precedent - in matters that have either similar or different facts but involve Merchant Cash
Advance (hereinafter known as “MCA”) contracts - is that there were no such precedents.
The Defendant is represented by a highly experienced attorney with a long history of
representing clients in MCA matters. Yet, he could not find any citations or precedents that
would be favorable to the Defendant that could be cited in his Opposition. The Defense
Attorney’s utter inability to find any precedents, whether with similar or different facts, to defend
his position speaks very loudly that MCA contracts are routinely upheld.
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
POINT TWO REPLY: FEES COVER LOSS OF PROFIT AND THE COST OF
RECOVERY OF FUNDS AND THUS NOT DEEMED A PENALTY
Parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause “provided that the clause is neither
unconscionable nor contrary to public policy”. Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v Puritan Farms 2nd,
Inc., 41 NY2d 420 (1977).
A. DEFAULT FEE: In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s “Default Fee” of $5,000.00 is
liquidated damages to cover Plaintiff’s loss of potential revenue. The Court should take judicial
notice of fact that in the Merchant Cash Advance industry, money is the merchandise and,
therefore, the contractually agreed upon Default Fee constitute reimbursement to the probable
loss and the reasonable compensation for the loss of use of funds and risk assumed by Plaintiff.
Such loss is incapable and difficult of precise estimation. Further, there are expenses that Global
Horizon Funding LLC (hereinafter known as “GHF”) as a result of a Merchant defaulting.
Ordinarily, a Case Manager is paid for the work done up to the point when a Merchant
gets funded. At that point, the merchant payment is returned to GHF at agreed upon intervals and
does not require any further management. However, once a Merchant defaults, the Case Manager
is required for a different project to prepare for the attempt to collect the funds. The Case
Manager must contact, usually multiple times and by various means, the Merchant as well as the
Broker that the Merchant used. The Case Manager must also prepare the necessary paperwork.
This requires the help and the knowledge of an accountant and/or a bookkeeper. The Case
Manager attempts to negotiate a settlement based on the ability and the needs of the Merchant,
and that requires reviewing their documents and finances. All of these actions by the Case
Manager, Accountant and other professionals require further payments by the GHF. This would
not take place if the Merchant had not defaulted. Where a reasonable settlement becomes
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
impossible, the Case Manager and Accountant must prepare the paperwork and financials
required to send the file to the law firm representing GHF. All of this took place and will
continue to take place in the future with the Defendant in the herein matter. The fee charged by
GHF reflects the reasonable proportion to the probable loss by GHF caused by the Merchant’s
default.
In the matters cited by the Defendant’s attorney, the Plaintiffs in those cases failed to
state what possible damages they incurred in addition to the actual damages: in most cases, the
Plaintiff stated that their fee was not exorbitant compared to the actual damages, while in one
case1, the Plaintiff did not even bother to reply to the Defendant’s Opposition.
That was not enough for the Courts in those cases. Whatever payment arrangement, if
any, those Plaintiffs had with their managers, accountants, bookkeepers and others was unstated
and in the absence of additional possible damages, those Courts did not grant the Default Fee. It
may be possible that those merchants have full-time staff that do not get paid extra to deal with
defaults and fraudsters who default and/or purposely block payments. That is certainly not the
case with GHF, a small company that does not have any employees, and must pay additional fees
for each additional job.
However, in other matters where the Court was informed that the Plaintiff suffered or
anticipates to suffer damages, the Court did, in fact, grant the Default Fee. The Court in Kodiak
Funding, LLC v. Golden Hosp'y LLC, No. E2022001777, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3782 (Sup.
Ct. July 27, 2022) (Exhibit D) held that liquidated damages was warranted because in that action,
the Plaintiff made the claim that there is a loss of revenue. Thus, the relevant precedents are that
1
In Byzfunder NY LLC against M.A.T. Auto Transport LLC d/b/a M.A.T Auto Transport and Wais Rahmani,
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings (Justice Peter P. Sweeny), Index No. 517021/2021
(Defendants Exhibit A) the Plaintiff didn’t even bother to submit a Reply.
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
the Default Fee is not always rejected, but only if the Plaintiff fails to have any additional
possible damages that it may have suffered. This is no different than the precedents that refuse to
grant damages to, analogously, a vehicle accident victim who suffered neither injured nor vehicle
damage. That, obviously, does not mean that damages can never be paid in a vehicle accident
lawsuit. Likewise, the fact that Courts refused the Default Fee when there were no liquidated
damages is not relevant to a matter where the Plaintiff did, in fact, incur damages.
As stated already, GHF incurs damages as a result of a default because under its
contractual terms with its contractual project workers, additional fees must be paid if there is a
default by a Merchant.
B. BLOCKED PAYMENT FEE: Plaintiff’s “Blocked Payment Fee” of $5,000.00 is
liquidated damages to cover the additional cost of managing the file that would not occur if the
Merchant merely defaulted, but did not purposely try to escape making future payments by
blocking further payments. Normally, if a Merchant defaults, he can restart payments once the
company obtains further receivables from customers. An honest Merchant who delays payments
due to issues such as negligence or a mismanagement of funds makes no attempt to scam the
Funder and a reasonable settlement can often be worked out with them.
However, a scammer whose intent is to defraud the investor will block all payments even
when the business receives money in the future. In this case, the Defendant went a step further
and outright closed his bank account. Despite promises to provide new bank account
information, the Defendant to this day refused to do so. The Merchant engaged in fraud will also
block the Funder’s access to the information whether or not the purchased receivables were, in
fact, received by the Merchant. This makes working out any settlement impossible because the
scammer makes every attempt to get away with the fraud.
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
Moreover, in the cases cited by the Defendant’s attorney, the Merchants made a large
percentage of the payments due under their contract, in some cases 6 digits. This shows good
will and honesty of the Merchants who fell on hard times. In this case, the Defendant made only
a few small daily payments and within one week the payments were blocked and the account was
closed. As explained above, dealing with Defendant who has no intention of making good on
their contract incurs additional cost compared not only to the Merchants that follow the terms of
the contract, but even compared to honest Merchants that defaulted due to various financial
issues.
Thus, the Funder is forced to incur additional expenses that go beyond the usual default,
including the probable cost of a private investigator, online investigative websites, and/or other
additional recovery expenses since it is routinely common that merchants who block payments to
dissipate their assets. As such, the blocked fee is not a “penalty” - it is a necessary expense that
the Funder cannot escape due strictly to the actions of the Merchant. A blocked payment triggers
the inclusion of a fee into the total calculation of damages because the Defendant has willfully
performed an act to undermine the agreement, requiring further expenses by GHF.
C. FEES IN GENERAL. As cited above, the Court in Kodiak Funding, LLC v. Golden
Hosp'y LLC, No. E2022001777, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3782 (Sup. Ct. July 27, 2022) held that
a judgment liquidated damages was warranted because in that action the Plaintiff had a loss of
revenue. Court rulings stood for the proposition that being able to ascertain Plaintiff’s direct
losses due to breach should not bar recovery for default fees because there are other losses
involved in addition to the actual loss. Defendants do not oppose any of Plaintiffs facts.
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
Defendants, after a willful breach2, wish to avoid the liquidated damages. Defendants should not
be able to sign an Agreement which contains a liquidated damages provision, then almost
immediately willfully breach the Agreement and not be required to cover the Plaintiff’s
anticipated damages.
When a default occurs, triggering the inclusion of the default fee into the total calculation
of damages, it is because Defendant has performed an act that undermines the economic purpose
of the agreement, which from the Plaintiff’s perspective is an investment made in Defendant’s
ability to quickly generate receivables due to the infusion of its funds. An event of default also
represents a breach of trust that undermines the economics of the investment, and which could
have been made elsewhere. Therefore, here, because the fees represents a reasonable proportion
to the probable loss caused by Defendants having undermined the purpose of the investment, and
such loss is incapable and difficult of precise estimation, its inclusion in the Plaintiff’s
calculation of damages must be sustained.
Courts have ruled that default fees in agreements like the case at bar are enforceable and
subject to enforcement by the courts.3
In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s total fees of $10,000.00 is a reasonable amount to cover
the cost of post-judgment recovery and the loss of potential revenue. Perseus Telecorn, LTD. v
Indy Research Labs, LLC provides a guide for when excessive fees should not be sustained.
Perseus Telecorn, LTD. v Indy Research Labs, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 33083[U] (Sup Ct, NY
County 2018). Courts have routinely held that such fees are not excessive or a penalty.
2
Defendants paid back less than 10% of the $22,500 before deciding to breech their agreement by closing their bank
account within two weeks. Although not specified in the Complaint, this borders on fraudulent criminal behavior.
3
See attached Exhibit E “Vox Funding v Lifepointe Hospice Dallas Metroplex LLC”; Exhibit F “Union Funding
Source v Sunshine Halal Foods LLC”. In those cases, the Merchant Agreement itself explicitly explained the
probable costs for the fees involved.
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
Quicksilver Capital v. All Around Office Installation, 2021 NY Slip Op 31929(U) (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Queens Co., February 1, 2021); LG Funding LLC v. Hunt Communications, LLC, 2019 NY
Slip Op 32331(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., August 1, 2019); LG Funding, LLC v. Filton
LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 33289(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., December 14, 2018); Strategic
Funding Source, Inc. v. Gill Inv. Group, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 32149(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Co., August 31, 2018); Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Patrick’s Antique Cars And
Trucks, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 31940(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Co., March 12, 2018);
Power Up Lending Grp., Ltd. v. Cardinal Energy Grp., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57527 (E.D.
N.Y., April 3, 2019); Power Up Lending Grp., Ltd. v. N. Am. Custom Specialty Vehicles, Inc.,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127992 (E.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017); LG Funding, LLC v. Fla. Tilt,
Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92061, 2015 WL 439053 (E.D. N.Y., July FILED: NASSAU
COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2022 05:13 PMINDEX NO. 608818/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO.
31RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2022 3 of 515, 2015).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be granted in the total amount of
$30,625, plus interest at the statutory rate, costs in the amount of $705, disbursements and attorney’s
fees in the amount of $5,650;because Plaintiff has made a prima facia case that no triable issue of
fact exist, and Defendants ’affirmation in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did
not contain an affidavit by, or on behalf of the Defendants, nor did it provide any documentary
evidence.
Dated: July 10, 2023
New York, NY
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
DAVID STOROBIN, ESQ.
STOROBIN LAW FIRM PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
299 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(ph) (646) 350-0601
(fax) (646) 350-0631
David@storobinlaw.com
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023
WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify pursuant to part 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court & the
County Court that this document according to the word count tool on Microsoft Word, the total
number of words in this document (and Reply Affidavit) is 3101, consistent with the rule that (i)
affidavits, affirmations, briefs and memoranda of law in chief be limited to 7,000 words each; (ii)
reply affidavits, affirmations, and memoranda be no more than 4,200 words, and do not contain
any arguments that do not respond or relate to those made in the memoranda in chief.
Dated: July 10, 2023
New York, NY
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
DAVID STOROBIN, ESQ.
STOROBIN LAW FIRM PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
299 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(ph) (646) 350-0601
(fax) (646) 350-0631
David@storobinlaw.com
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ..................................................................................... GLOBAL HORIZON FUNDING LLC, Index No. 652121/2023 Plaintiff REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW -against- PRESTIGE TRUCKING GLOBAL L.L.C. and STEVEN BADRU Defendants ....................................................................................... POINT ONE REPLY: THE AGREEMENT IS NOT UNCONSIOUSABLE AND IS ENFORCEABLE Plaintiff strongly denies that the Act has been violated. Further, mere minor infractions that are falsely alleged by the Defendant do not rise to the level of unconscionability that void the agreement. There is nothing in the statue or case law supporting Defendant’s attempt to invalidate the agreement based on those violations, which is why the Defendant through his attorney was unable to find a single case supporting his position to invalidate the agreement. We maintain that the reason neither the Defendant’s nor the Plaintiff’s attorney was able to find a precedent - in matters that have either similar or different facts but involve Merchant Cash Advance (hereinafter known as “MCA”) contracts - is that there were no such precedents. The Defendant is represented by a highly experienced attorney with a long history of representing clients in MCA matters. Yet, he could not find any citations or precedents that would be favorable to the Defendant that could be cited in his Opposition. The Defense Attorney’s utter inability to find any precedents, whether with similar or different facts, to defend his position speaks very loudly that MCA contracts are routinely upheld. 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 POINT TWO REPLY: FEES COVER LOSS OF PROFIT AND THE COST OF RECOVERY OF FUNDS AND THUS NOT DEEMED A PENALTY Parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause “provided that the clause is neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy”. Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v Puritan Farms 2nd, Inc., 41 NY2d 420 (1977). A. DEFAULT FEE: In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s “Default Fee” of $5,000.00 is liquidated damages to cover Plaintiff’s loss of potential revenue. The Court should take judicial notice of fact that in the Merchant Cash Advance industry, money is the merchandise and, therefore, the contractually agreed upon Default Fee constitute reimbursement to the probable loss and the reasonable compensation for the loss of use of funds and risk assumed by Plaintiff. Such loss is incapable and difficult of precise estimation. Further, there are expenses that Global Horizon Funding LLC (hereinafter known as “GHF”) as a result of a Merchant defaulting. Ordinarily, a Case Manager is paid for the work done up to the point when a Merchant gets funded. At that point, the merchant payment is returned to GHF at agreed upon intervals and does not require any further management. However, once a Merchant defaults, the Case Manager is required for a different project to prepare for the attempt to collect the funds. The Case Manager must contact, usually multiple times and by various means, the Merchant as well as the Broker that the Merchant used. The Case Manager must also prepare the necessary paperwork. This requires the help and the knowledge of an accountant and/or a bookkeeper. The Case Manager attempts to negotiate a settlement based on the ability and the needs of the Merchant, and that requires reviewing their documents and finances. All of these actions by the Case Manager, Accountant and other professionals require further payments by the GHF. This would not take place if the Merchant had not defaulted. Where a reasonable settlement becomes 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 impossible, the Case Manager and Accountant must prepare the paperwork and financials required to send the file to the law firm representing GHF. All of this took place and will continue to take place in the future with the Defendant in the herein matter. The fee charged by GHF reflects the reasonable proportion to the probable loss by GHF caused by the Merchant’s default. In the matters cited by the Defendant’s attorney, the Plaintiffs in those cases failed to state what possible damages they incurred in addition to the actual damages: in most cases, the Plaintiff stated that their fee was not exorbitant compared to the actual damages, while in one case1, the Plaintiff did not even bother to reply to the Defendant’s Opposition. That was not enough for the Courts in those cases. Whatever payment arrangement, if any, those Plaintiffs had with their managers, accountants, bookkeepers and others was unstated and in the absence of additional possible damages, those Courts did not grant the Default Fee. It may be possible that those merchants have full-time staff that do not get paid extra to deal with defaults and fraudsters who default and/or purposely block payments. That is certainly not the case with GHF, a small company that does not have any employees, and must pay additional fees for each additional job. However, in other matters where the Court was informed that the Plaintiff suffered or anticipates to suffer damages, the Court did, in fact, grant the Default Fee. The Court in Kodiak Funding, LLC v. Golden Hosp'y LLC, No. E2022001777, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3782 (Sup. Ct. July 27, 2022) (Exhibit D) held that liquidated damages was warranted because in that action, the Plaintiff made the claim that there is a loss of revenue. Thus, the relevant precedents are that 1 In Byzfunder NY LLC against M.A.T. Auto Transport LLC d/b/a M.A.T Auto Transport and Wais Rahmani, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings (Justice Peter P. Sweeny), Index No. 517021/2021 (Defendants Exhibit A) the Plaintiff didn’t even bother to submit a Reply. 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 the Default Fee is not always rejected, but only if the Plaintiff fails to have any additional possible damages that it may have suffered. This is no different than the precedents that refuse to grant damages to, analogously, a vehicle accident victim who suffered neither injured nor vehicle damage. That, obviously, does not mean that damages can never be paid in a vehicle accident lawsuit. Likewise, the fact that Courts refused the Default Fee when there were no liquidated damages is not relevant to a matter where the Plaintiff did, in fact, incur damages. As stated already, GHF incurs damages as a result of a default because under its contractual terms with its contractual project workers, additional fees must be paid if there is a default by a Merchant. B. BLOCKED PAYMENT FEE: Plaintiff’s “Blocked Payment Fee” of $5,000.00 is liquidated damages to cover the additional cost of managing the file that would not occur if the Merchant merely defaulted, but did not purposely try to escape making future payments by blocking further payments. Normally, if a Merchant defaults, he can restart payments once the company obtains further receivables from customers. An honest Merchant who delays payments due to issues such as negligence or a mismanagement of funds makes no attempt to scam the Funder and a reasonable settlement can often be worked out with them. However, a scammer whose intent is to defraud the investor will block all payments even when the business receives money in the future. In this case, the Defendant went a step further and outright closed his bank account. Despite promises to provide new bank account information, the Defendant to this day refused to do so. The Merchant engaged in fraud will also block the Funder’s access to the information whether or not the purchased receivables were, in fact, received by the Merchant. This makes working out any settlement impossible because the scammer makes every attempt to get away with the fraud. 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 Moreover, in the cases cited by the Defendant’s attorney, the Merchants made a large percentage of the payments due under their contract, in some cases 6 digits. This shows good will and honesty of the Merchants who fell on hard times. In this case, the Defendant made only a few small daily payments and within one week the payments were blocked and the account was closed. As explained above, dealing with Defendant who has no intention of making good on their contract incurs additional cost compared not only to the Merchants that follow the terms of the contract, but even compared to honest Merchants that defaulted due to various financial issues. Thus, the Funder is forced to incur additional expenses that go beyond the usual default, including the probable cost of a private investigator, online investigative websites, and/or other additional recovery expenses since it is routinely common that merchants who block payments to dissipate their assets. As such, the blocked fee is not a “penalty” - it is a necessary expense that the Funder cannot escape due strictly to the actions of the Merchant. A blocked payment triggers the inclusion of a fee into the total calculation of damages because the Defendant has willfully performed an act to undermine the agreement, requiring further expenses by GHF. C. FEES IN GENERAL. As cited above, the Court in Kodiak Funding, LLC v. Golden Hosp'y LLC, No. E2022001777, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3782 (Sup. Ct. July 27, 2022) held that a judgment liquidated damages was warranted because in that action the Plaintiff had a loss of revenue. Court rulings stood for the proposition that being able to ascertain Plaintiff’s direct losses due to breach should not bar recovery for default fees because there are other losses involved in addition to the actual loss. Defendants do not oppose any of Plaintiffs facts. 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 Defendants, after a willful breach2, wish to avoid the liquidated damages. Defendants should not be able to sign an Agreement which contains a liquidated damages provision, then almost immediately willfully breach the Agreement and not be required to cover the Plaintiff’s anticipated damages. When a default occurs, triggering the inclusion of the default fee into the total calculation of damages, it is because Defendant has performed an act that undermines the economic purpose of the agreement, which from the Plaintiff’s perspective is an investment made in Defendant’s ability to quickly generate receivables due to the infusion of its funds. An event of default also represents a breach of trust that undermines the economics of the investment, and which could have been made elsewhere. Therefore, here, because the fees represents a reasonable proportion to the probable loss caused by Defendants having undermined the purpose of the investment, and such loss is incapable and difficult of precise estimation, its inclusion in the Plaintiff’s calculation of damages must be sustained. Courts have ruled that default fees in agreements like the case at bar are enforceable and subject to enforcement by the courts.3 In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s total fees of $10,000.00 is a reasonable amount to cover the cost of post-judgment recovery and the loss of potential revenue. Perseus Telecorn, LTD. v Indy Research Labs, LLC provides a guide for when excessive fees should not be sustained. Perseus Telecorn, LTD. v Indy Research Labs, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 33083[U] (Sup Ct, NY County 2018). Courts have routinely held that such fees are not excessive or a penalty. 2 Defendants paid back less than 10% of the $22,500 before deciding to breech their agreement by closing their bank account within two weeks. Although not specified in the Complaint, this borders on fraudulent criminal behavior. 3 See attached Exhibit E “Vox Funding v Lifepointe Hospice Dallas Metroplex LLC”; Exhibit F “Union Funding Source v Sunshine Halal Foods LLC”. In those cases, the Merchant Agreement itself explicitly explained the probable costs for the fees involved. 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 Quicksilver Capital v. All Around Office Installation, 2021 NY Slip Op 31929(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Co., February 1, 2021); LG Funding LLC v. Hunt Communications, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 32331(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., August 1, 2019); LG Funding, LLC v. Filton LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 33289(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Co., December 14, 2018); Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Gill Inv. Group, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 32149(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Co., August 31, 2018); Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Patrick’s Antique Cars And Trucks, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 31940(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Co., March 12, 2018); Power Up Lending Grp., Ltd. v. Cardinal Energy Grp., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57527 (E.D. N.Y., April 3, 2019); Power Up Lending Grp., Ltd. v. N. Am. Custom Specialty Vehicles, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127992 (E.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017); LG Funding, LLC v. Fla. Tilt, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92061, 2015 WL 439053 (E.D. N.Y., July FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/19/2022 05:13 PMINDEX NO. 608818/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/19/2022 3 of 515, 2015). CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be granted in the total amount of $30,625, plus interest at the statutory rate, costs in the amount of $705, disbursements and attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,650;because Plaintiff has made a prima facia case that no triable issue of fact exist, and Defendants ’affirmation in opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did not contain an affidavit by, or on behalf of the Defendants, nor did it provide any documentary evidence. Dated: July 10, 2023 New York, NY 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 Respectfully submitted, _______________________ DAVID STOROBIN, ESQ. STOROBIN LAW FIRM PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 299 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007 (ph) (646) 350-0601 (fax) (646) 350-0631 David@storobinlaw.com 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/10/2023 04:42 AM INDEX NO. 652121/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/10/2023 WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify pursuant to part 202.8-b of the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court & the County Court that this document according to the word count tool on Microsoft Word, the total number of words in this document (and Reply Affidavit) is 3101, consistent with the rule that (i) affidavits, affirmations, briefs and memoranda of law in chief be limited to 7,000 words each; (ii) reply affidavits, affirmations, and memoranda be no more than 4,200 words, and do not contain any arguments that do not respond or relate to those made in the memoranda in chief. Dated: July 10, 2023 New York, NY Respectfully submitted, _______________________ DAVID STOROBIN, ESQ. STOROBIN LAW FIRM PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 299 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007 (ph) (646) 350-0601 (fax) (646) 350-0631 David@storobinlaw.com 9 of 9