Funding Metrics lawsuit: what the Second Department held on Lendini confessions of judgment

Funding Metrics (Lendini) lawsuit record: two Second Department Slip Ops on Westchester confession of judgment vacatur, motion vs plenary action.

Updated 2026-10-30

Home · News · Funding Metrics lawsuit

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

People searching for a Funding Metrics lawsuit, or for Lendini reviews and lawsuits, usually find private New York collection files built on confessions of judgment entered in Westchester County. The funder is Funding Metrics, LLC, which did business as Lendini according to the Second Department. Two published Second Department opinions involve it: Funding Metrics, LLC v A & A Fabrication & Polishing Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05724, and Funding Metrics, LLC v D & V Hospitality, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04964. Both are about procedure. They decide how a merchant may challenge a confession of judgment, and neither is a ruling that the funder's agreements are good or bad on the merits. This page covers what those two opinions say. It does not predict how your file will go.

Editorial update: 2026-10-30 · Desk research of the two published Second Department opinions on the New York Courts reporter. Not legal advice.

Quick answer

Item	Public record
Funder	Funding Metrics, LLC, d/b/a Lendini (Delaware LLC, per A & A)
Case 1	Funding Metrics, LLC v A & A Fabrication & Polishing Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05724 (2d Dept Oct. 14, 2020)
Case 1 outcome	Order modified: subject matter jurisdiction challenge denied on the merits; remaining challenge denied without prejudice to a plenary action; affirmed as modified
Case 2	Funding Metrics, LLC v D & V Hospitality, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04964 (2d Dept Sept. 15, 2021)
Case 2 outcome	Westchester order vacating the confession judgment reversed; motion denied without prejudice to a plenary action
Core point	A confession of judgment is generally attacked through a separate plenary action, not a motion, unless the challenge fits a narrow exception such as the court's authority to enter it

If papers name Funding Metrics or Lendini, find out whether the judgment has already been entered and whether any bank restraint or levy is in place. Then talk to a licensed New York attorney about which vehicle, motion or plenary action, fits your facts.

What "Funding Metrics lawsuit" usually means

This is not an Attorney General or FTC enforcement story. The published record is collection litigation: the funder filed a confession of judgment with the Westchester County Clerk after a claimed default, and the merchant later tried to undo it. Searches for "Lendini reviews" often come from the same place. A merchant hears the name, finds a judgment, and wants to know what kind of funder this is in court. The two appellate opinions below are the clearest public answer we found.

Case 1: A & A Fabrication (2020 NY Slip Op 05724)

The deal and the judgment

On January 26, 2017, Funding Metrics entered a merchant agreement with A & A Fabrication and Polishing Corporation, a California company. The funder bought receipts with a face value of $56,000 for a purchase price of $40,000, to be paid through daily weekday payments of $424.24. If a defined default occurred, the full uncollected purchase amount became due, along with costs and attorney's fees.

Amada Henderson, A & A's owner and president, signed an affidavit of confession of judgment for herself and the company. It consented to entry of judgment in any New York court, including Supreme Court, Westchester County.

The opinion says it was undisputed that the defendants defaulted in April 2017. On May 18, 2017, the Westchester County Clerk entered judgment for $44,152.24.

What the merchants argued

The defendants moved to vacate on two grounds. First, that Westchester lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Second, that the confession affidavit violated due process because they had not knowingly waived notice and a hearing.

Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruderman, J.) denied the motion by order dated October 17, 2018, on the ground that a plenary action was required, and also discussed and rejected the merits.

What the Second Department held

The panel split the two grounds:

Subject matter jurisdiction. A claim that the court lacked authority to enter the judgment is an exception to the plenary action rule, so it could be raised by motion. It failed anyway. Under the version of CPLR 3218(b) in effect when the affidavit was filed, the clerk of the county designated in the affidavit could enter a confession judgment against a nonresident defendant. That branch was denied on the merits.
Due process waiver. That ground did not fit any exception. The trial court should have denied it without reaching the merits, and without prejudice to a plenary action.

As modified, the order was affirmed. Balkin, J.P., Barros, Connolly, and Wooten, JJ., concurred. The opinion lists the prior history as 2018 NY Slip Op 32634(U).

Case 2: D & V Hospitality (2021 NY Slip Op 04964)

The deal and the judgment

D & V Hospitality signed a merchant agreement with Funding Metrics dated September 23, 2016. The funder bought future receivables with a face value of $29,200 for $20,000. D & V authorized daily debits of $265.45, alleged to be an estimate of 24.62% of daily revenue, until the full amount was paid.

Carl Vitellino, the owner, personally guaranteed performance. The confession affidavit authorized judgment for $29,200 less payments made, plus legal fees calculated at 25%, costs, and interest at 16% per year or the highest lawful rate, whichever was greater.

The funder's affidavit of nonpayment said D & V stopped paying on or about October 6, 2016 while still operating. Judgment was entered on November 1, 2016 for $34,713.93 against D & V and Vitellino.

The trial court vacated the judgment

In August 2018, Vitellino moved to vacate the judgment and void the agreement, arguing that it was a usurious loan and, in effect, that D & V had not been in default. Supreme Court, Westchester County (Everett, J.) granted the motion by order dated January 7, 2019. The trial discussion was published as 2019 NY Slip Op 29008. Merchants who read about that ruling sometimes stop there, which is a mistake.

The Second Department reversed

The appellate court reversed, on the law, with costs. It repeated the general rule that a person seeking to vacate a judgment entered on a confession affidavit must bring a separate plenary action. Usury and lack of default did not fall within an exception to that rule. Vitellino's motion was therefore denied without prejudice to his right to start a plenary action. Austin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Connolly, and Wooten, JJ., were on the panel.

The panel did not decide whether the agreement was a usurious loan. It decided that a motion was the wrong way to raise the question.

Motion vs plenary action, in plain terms

A motion is a request made inside the existing case. It is faster and cheaper. A plenary action is a new lawsuit, with its own pleadings, discovery, and timeline.

Read together, these two opinions show the line New York's Second Department draws for confession judgments:

A challenge to the court's power to enter the judgment can be brought by motion. In A & A, it was, and it lost on the merits.
Fact-heavy defenses such as usury, lack of default, or an unknowing waiver generally go to a plenary action.

"Without prejudice" means the court did not decide those defenses. The merchant may still bring them in a separate suit. It also means the judgment stayed in place after each appeal, at least as far as these opinions show.

What these opinions do not tell you

They do not say Funding Metrics agreements are lawful in general, and they do not say they are unlawful. They do not report what happened after the appeals. Whether either merchant later filed a plenary action, settled, or paid is not in the published record we reviewed, and we have not guessed.

They also come from 2020 and 2021. New York amended CPLR 3218 in 2019 to limit out-of-state confession judgments, and the A & A panel applied the earlier version that governed when that affidavit was filed. If your confession affidavit was signed later, the current statute and your own facts control.

How this fits with other funder lawsuit pages

Most of our funder pages deal with the three-factor test for whether an MCA is a loan: reconciliation, term, and bankruptcy recourse. The Funding Metrics opinions sit one step earlier. They are about the vehicle for raising a defense at all. Compare:

LG Funding lawsuit: the Second Department's three-factor usury framework in United Senior.
Diesel Funding lawsuit: a vacatur fight that the Second Department resolved for the funder.
Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit: a default judgment vacated where repayment was treated as absolute.
Principis Capital lawsuit and True Business Funding lawsuit: further three-factor appellate signals.

For the broader picture, read the merchant cash advance lawsuit guide and our explainer on confessions of judgment in MCAs.

If papers name Funding Metrics or Lendini

If you have a summons, a restraining notice, a levy, or a frozen account, speak with a licensed attorney in the relevant state first. Our guide to the first 30 days after service explains the deadlines that usually matter.
Gather the paper trail: the merchant agreement, any guaranty, the confession affidavit, the affidavit of nonpayment, the entered judgment, and your bank records showing what was debited.
If no judgment has been entered and you are looking at negotiation, compare written proposals from more than one provider and confirm who would handle court work if it came to that.

Related funder lawsuit pages

Funding Metrics is one entry in our MCA lawsuit tracker, which collects the funder cases we have written up.

Sources (public)

Funding Metrics, LLC v A & A Fabrication & Polishing Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05724, 187 AD3d 857 (2d Dept Oct. 14, 2020), NY Courts reporter
Funding Metrics, LLC v D & V Hospitality, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04964, 197 AD3d 1150 (2d Dept Sept. 15, 2021), NY Courts reporter; Justia republication

Takeaway

The published Funding Metrics (Lendini) record is two Second Department opinions about how to challenge a Westchester confession of judgment. In A & A, the court-authority challenge was heard by motion and rejected on the merits, and the rest was sent to a plenary action. In D & V, a trial court vacatur was reversed because usury and no-default arguments belong in a plenary action. Neither opinion decides whether the funder's agreements are loans, and neither tells you what will happen with your judgment.

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.