MCA Settlement Reviews
Menu
MCA Settlement Reviews

Apollo Funding lawsuit: what the Second Department held in Dave Reilly

Apollo Funding lawsuit coverage of Dave Reilly: the Second Department reversed Rockland and granted funder SJ, finding the agreement was not a usurious loan.

Updated

Home · News · Apollo Funding lawsuit

By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background

An Apollo Funding lawsuit search usually lands on private New York collection litigation naming Apollo Funding Co., not a statewide Attorney General enforcement caption. The clearest published appellate signal is the Second Department's September 24, 2025 decision in Apollo Funding Co. v. Dave Reilly Constr., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05055, 241 AD3d 1508. That panel reversed a Rockland County order that had denied Apollo summary judgment, held the revenue-purchase agreement was not a usurious loan under the three-factor test, and granted Apollo judgment on its breach and personal-guaranty claims. This page sticks to that Slip Opinion and the Rockland order it reversed. It is not a prediction about your file.

Editorial update: 2026-10-27 · Desk research of the published Second Department opinion (and the Rockland order it reversed). Not legal advice.

Quick answer

ItemPublic record
Lead published caseApollo Funding Co. v. Dave Reilly Constr., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05055, 241 AD3d 1508 (2d Dept Sept. 24, 2025)
Trial courtSupreme Court, Rockland County (Cornell, J.), order dated Apr. 22, 2024 (Index No. 35156/23)
Trial postureApollo's motion for summary judgment on breach and guaranty denied
Appellate outcomeOrder reversed; Apollo's SJ motion granted
Core holdingAgreement not a loan: reconciliation/adjustments to daily remittances, no finite term, bankruptcy not an event of default; unused reconciliation ≠ illusory on this record

Soft next step if papers name Apollo Funding: compare your reconciliation procedure, term, and bankruptcy default language to the package the Second Department treated as contingent receivables before you assume either label controls.

What happened below and on appeal

On or about August 2, 2023, Apollo and Dave Reilly Construction, LLC (DRC) entered a written agreement. DRC sold an interest in future receivables for a $25,000 purchase price. In exchange, DRC authorized Apollo to debit a percentage of monthly sales revenue until Apollo received $37,750 (the purchased amount). On default, the full uncollected purchased amount became immediately due. David A. Reilly signed a personal guaranty. Apollo funded about August 3, 2023, net of $2,550 in agreed fees.

Apollo sued in October 2023 for breach and on the guaranty, alleging DRC paid $14,240 then stopped. The defendants admitted execution but raised, among other defenses, that Apollo had induced an unlawful usurious loan. Apollo moved for summary judgment. Rockland denied the motion on April 22, 2024. Apollo appealed.

What the Second Department held

If the agreement were a loan, criminal usury could void it (Principis; Davis). Usury requires a loan; without absolute repayment there is no loan (LG Funding). Courts usually weigh three factors: (1) a reconciliation provision; (2) whether the term is finite; (3) recourse if the merchant declares bankruptcy.

Here the panel held Apollo established the deal was not a loan:

  1. The agreement provided for adjustments to daily payments based on changes to DRC's daily receipts (reconciliation).
  2. Because daily amounts could change, the term was not finite (Principis).
  3. Because DRC did not engage the reconciliation procedure, review of a claim that the process was illusory was precluded.
  4. No contractual provision made bankruptcy an event of default (express cf. to Crystal Springs Capital, Inc. v. Big Thicket Coin, LLC, 220 AD3d 745).

Apollo otherwise made out breach and damages; the defendants raised no triable issue. Rockland should have granted summary judgment. Barros, J.P., Ford, Wan, and Love concurred.

Why this matters for "Apollo Funding lawsuit" searches

This is a funder-side Second Department reversal that sits across the aisle from the same Department's merchant-side usury win in Big Thicket. Same three-factor test; opposite package; opposite result. Compare:

If your caption is Apollo collecting after Rockland-style pushback on usury, Dave Reilly is the published Second Department signal that unused reconciliation does not, on that record, make the clause illusory, and that missing bankruptcy-as-default language weighs against absolute repayment. A Crystal Springs-style fixed debit with no reconciliation duty can still go the other way in the same Department.

Related funder lawsuit pages

To see how the Apollo Funding filings sit next to cases against other funders, our MCA lawsuit tracker lists them side by side.

Sources (public)

Takeaway

Treat "Apollo Funding lawsuit" search intent primarily through the Second Department's Dave Reilly opinion: Rockland denied funder SJ; the Appellate Division reversed and granted it after finding reconciliation adjustments, a non-finite term, unused reconciliation that the panel would not treat as illusory on that record, and no bankruptcy-as-default clause. That is a receivables-vs-loan appellate signal, not a statewide ban and not an FTC refund story. Read it next to Big Thicket before you treat either case as the whole Second Department rule.

Talk to our featured first provider

Request a free consultation from Coastal Debt Resolve. Confirm fees, service scope, and any legal representation in writing.

Get a free review

Also comparing providers? Read our Business Debt Insider review, and confirm any engagement terms directly with BDI.