Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cash4Cases, Inc. v. Brunetti
Citation: 2018 NY Slip Op 8360Docket: 7826 655131/16
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 5, 2018; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Cash4Cases, Inc. initiated a legal action against Arthur Brunetti regarding an "Agreement for Purchase of Claim," where Cash4Cases advanced $76,930 to Brunetti at a high interest rate, contingent upon Brunetti's successful recovery in a personal injury lawsuit. Brunetti later refused to repay the amount after receiving settlement proceeds, claiming the agreement was usurious and unconscionable. The court ruled that the agreement was neither usurious nor unconscionable. It clarified that the defense of usury applies only to loans, and since Brunetti's repayment was entirely contingent on the success of his personal injury claim, the agreement did not constitute a loan. The court referenced several precedents to support this distinction. Additionally, the court found that Brunetti did not demonstrate any unconscionability, as he had sought the cash advance, was represented by legal counsel, and acknowledged the terms of the agreement, including the interest rate, by initialing every page. The court noted that despite the high interest rate, the contingent nature of the agreement did not make it overly unfavorable to Brunetti. Furthermore, the court addressed Brunetti's claims regarding overpayment to a prior lender, Fast Trak Legal, finding that the overpayment was only $100, contrary to Brunetti's assertion of $5,600. The court concluded that this minor discrepancy did not invalidate the agreement based on mutual mistake. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the summary judgment in favor of Cash4Cases without costs.