MCA Settlement Reviews
Menu
MCA Settlement Reviews

Seamless Capital Group lawsuit: what Kings County held in Bryan Anthonys

Seamless Capital Group lawsuit coverage of Bryan Anthonys: Kings County denies funder SJ; business records fail CPLR 4518 foundation; usury not decided.

Updated

Home · News · Seamless Capital Group lawsuit

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

A Seamless Capital Group lawsuit search usually lands on private New York collection litigation naming Seamless Capital Group, Inc. (sometimes styled Seamless Capital Group LLC in federal pleadings), not a statewide Attorney General enforcement caption. The clearest published trial-level signal is Kings County's November 26, 2024 decision in Seamless Capital Group, Inc. v. Bryan A Anthonys Design LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 51620(U), 84 Misc 3d 1236(A). That opinion denied the funder's summary-judgment motion because the business records failed CPLR 4518 foundation, so breach (and guarantor liability) were not proven on those papers. The court did not decide the merchants' usury theory on the merits. This page sticks to that Slip Opinion. It is not a prediction about your file.

Editorial update: 2026-10-27 · Desk research of the published Kings County Slip Opinion only. Not legal advice.

Quick answer

ItemPublic record
Lead published caseSeamless Capital Group, Inc. v. Bryan A Anthonys Design LLC d/b/a Bryan Anthonys, 2024 NY Slip Op 51620(U), 84 Misc 3d 1236(A) (Sup Ct, Kings County Nov. 26, 2024) (Maslow, J.)
Index530308/2023
OutcomeFunder's CPLR 3212 motion (breach, guaranty, strike affirmative defenses) DENIED
Merchant / guarantorsBryan A Anthonys Design LLC; Edward Robert Glassman Jr; Amber Lynn Glassman
Core disputeMCA receivables purchase; funder sought SJ on alleged ACH-block breach; merchants raised usury, prima facie failure, and business-records foundation

Soft next step if papers name Seamless Capital Group: check whether the funder's proof package actually lays a CPLR 4518 foundation before treating a balance spreadsheet as trial-ready.

What Kings County held

Seamless alleged it purchased $374,750 of Bryan Anthonys' future receivables, remitted $250,000 less contractual fees, and that the merchant breached by preventing remittances and instructing its bank to refuse payment. Edward Robert Glassman Jr and Amber Lynn Glassman were alleged personal guarantors.

On summary judgment Seamless sought either $272,609.25 plus 16% interest from an alleged October 12, 2023 default, or alternatively $215,587.50 plus attorney's fees ($10,175 or $53,896.88) plus the same interest, costs, and disbursements. Support included an Eli Medina (manager) affidavit, counsel affirmation, and exhibits that purported to be the contract, a domestic wire notice, an ACH return report, and a payment history.

Defendants opposed through counsel, arguing usury-as-loan, failure of the prima facie burden, and lack of a proper business-records foundation. In reply Seamless added a Metropolitan Commercial Bank custodian affidavit (Ruslan Levy, last name partly illegible) and purported bank records.

Justice Maslow walked CPLR 4518: regular course, regular practice, contemporaneous making, and a recorder with personal knowledge under a business duty. Laying aside the first three elements, the court held the fourth was not met. Medina claimed custodian status and standard maintenance practice but did not claim personal knowledge of the acts recorded; he relied on unidentified employees. The bank custodian affidavit did not explain the link between Seamless and Metropolitan Commercial Bank, or whether the three attached pages were the complete account file. The ACH return report also showed a settlement date of September 18, 2024 on a document filed January 4, 2024, which the court could not reconcile.

Because the business records were inadmissible, Seamless failed to prove breach. Guarantor claims fell with them. The court also flagged Medina's damages math as not adding up ($215,587.50 + $218,087.50 + $2,500 yielding figures that did not match the claimed $272,609.25) and found counsel's oral explanation perplexing. The branch to strike affirmative defenses failed as well: Seamless did not individually dismantle them beyond a half-page reply. Motion denied. The usury defense was raised but not resolved on the three-factor receivables test.

Why this matters for "Seamless Capital Group lawsuit" searches

This is a merchant-side SJ denial on proof, not a published holding that Seamless products are usurious loans and not an AG / FTC refund caption. Compare:

If your caption is Seamless moving for judgment on ACH history, Bryan Anthonys is the published Kings County signal that a manager affidavit plus unidentified recorders, and a weakly linked bank custodian packet, may not carry CPLR 3212. Fixing foundation and damages math can change the next motion. It still does not decide usury for you.

Related funder lawsuit pages

Seamless Capital Group's cases are also listed in our MCA lawsuit tracker, next to filings involving other funders.

Sources (public)

  • Seamless Capital Group, Inc. v. Bryan A Anthonys Design LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 51620(U), 84 Misc 3d 1236(A) (Sup Ct, Kings County Nov. 26, 2024), NY Courts reporter

Takeaway

Treat "Seamless Capital Group lawsuit" search intent primarily through Kings County's Bryan Anthonys Slip Opinion: summary judgment denied because Seamless's business records failed the personal-knowledge / business-duty foundation under CPLR 4518, damages math looked broken, and affirmative defenses were not individually defeated. Usury was argued but not decided. That is an evidence-foundation signal, not a statewide ban and not an FTC refund story.

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.