Spin Capital lawsuit: what Nassau and the Second Department held in Bridgelink
Spin Capital lawsuit coverage of Bridgelink: the Second Department affirmed Nassau SJ and an $8.2M judgment, treating it as a receivables purchase.
Updated
Home · News · Spin Capital lawsuit
By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background
A Spin Capital lawsuit search usually lands on private New York collection litigation naming Spin Capital, LLC, not a statewide Attorney General enforcement caption. The clearest published multi-level signal is Spin Capital, LLC v. Bridgelink Engg., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02296 (2d Dept Apr. 15, 2026). Nassau County granted Spin summary judgment on breach and guaranty, dismissed usury/RICO counterclaims, and entered an $8,234,160.50 judgment; the Second Department affirmed that judgment. A separate New York County Commercial Division opinion, Spin Capital, LLC v. Golden Foothill Ins. Servs., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 30594(U), likewise declined to recharacterize related purchase agreements as usurious loans for RICO purposes. This page sticks to those public opinions. It is not a prediction about your file.
Editorial update: 2026-10-27 · Desk research of the published Second Department opinion and the Nassau order/judgment it reviewed, plus the Golden Foothill Slip Opinion. Not legal advice.
Quick answer
| Item | Public record |
|---|---|
| Lead appellate case | Spin Capital, LLC v. Bridgelink Engg., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02296 (2d Dept Apr. 15, 2026) (dockets 2024-04928, 2024-06248; Index No. 614675/22) |
| Trial court (Bridgelink) | Supreme Court, Nassau County (Solages, J.); order Jan. 23, 2024; judgment Feb. 9, 2024 |
| Bridgelink outcome | Nassau granted Spin SJ on breach/guaranty, dismissed affirmative defenses and CPLR 3211(a) counterclaims; 2d Dept affirmed the judgment (appeal from order dismissed as subsumed) |
| Companion trial signal | Spin Capital, LLC v. Golden Foothill Ins. Servs., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 30594(U) (Sup Ct, NY County, Borrok, J., Feb. 28, 2023) |
| Core holding (Bridgelink) | Remittance-adjustment clause + indefinite term + no bankruptcy-as-default → purchase of future receivables, not a criminally usurious loan |
Soft next step if papers name Spin Capital: compare your remittance-adjustment / reconciliation language, term, and bankruptcy default clauses to the package Nassau and the Second Department treated as contingent receivables before you assume either label controls.
What happened in Bridgelink (Nassau → Second Department)
On August 15, 2022, Spin and the Bridgelink Engineering defendants entered a written merchant agreement. Spin purchased future receivables valued at $7,500,000 for a $5,000,000 purchase price. Cole Wayne Johnson and Cord Johnson signed personal guaranties. Defendants paid $210,000, then authorized ACH debits were rejected for insufficient funds and account closure.
Spin sued for breach (among other claims). Defendants answered with counterclaims that the deal was a criminally usurious loan violating RICO (18 USC § 1962). Spin moved under CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the counterclaims, then for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, to dismiss affirmative defenses. On January 23, 2024, Nassau granted those branches. On February 9, 2024, judgment entered for $8,234,160.50. Defendants appealed the order and the judgment.
What the Second Department held
The appeal from the order was dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated when the judgment entered (Aho); the order issues came up for review on the judgment appeal (CPLR 5501[a][1]).
On the usury theory: without a loan there is no usury (LG Funding; cf. Crystal Springs). Courts examine whether repayment is absolute under all circumstances and usually weigh reconciliation, finite vs indefinite term, and bankruptcy recourse (Principis; True Bus. Funding).
Here Spin established prima facie that:
- The merchant agreement contained a clause providing for adjustment of remittances in response to fluctuations in receipts (Principis).
- That clause rendered the term indefinite.
- No contractual provision made bankruptcy an event of default (cf. True Bus. Funding; LG Funding).
Taken together, those factors showed a purchase of future receivables, not a criminally usurious loan. Spin also made out breach of contract and breach of guaranty; defendants raised no triable issue. Nassau properly granted SJ on those claims and properly dismissed the counterclaims under CPLR 3211(a). Remaining contentions lacked merit. Connolly, J.P., Wooten, Taylor, and Landicino concurred.
Companion note: Golden Foothill (NY County)
In Golden Foothill, Justice Borrok declined to recharacterize related Spin / affiliate purchase agreements as loans for a RICO unlawful-debt theory. Applying the same three-factor framing, the court pointed to mandatory reconciliation, non-finite terms driven by sales-contingent amounts, and express language that bankruptcy was not an event of default, and it refused to shrink a large facility below New York's usury threshold by ignoring amounts used to satisfy pre-existing obligations. That is a separate Commercial Division signal, not the Bridgelink judgment.
Why this matters for "Spin Capital lawsuit" searches
Bridgelink is a funder-side Second Department affirmance on a large receivables purchase with usury/RICO counterclaims wiped out below and on appeal. Industry commentary has highlighted the panel's treatment of an adjustment-only remittance clause as enough to satisfy the reconciliation factor and, with it, the indefinite-term factor. Compare:
- Diesel Funding lawsuit: 2d Dept affirmed Kings' denial of vacatur after percentage caps, reconciliation, unused recon review precluded, and no BK-as-default (Build Retail).
- Apollo Funding lawsuit: 2d Dept reversed Rockland and granted funder SJ; unused reconciliation not treated as illusory (Dave Reilly).
- Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit: 2d Dept vacated default and dismissed after fixed daily debits, no reconciliation duty, and bankruptcy/default acceleration made repayment absolute and criminally usurious (Big Thicket).
- True Business Funding lawsuit: 2d Dept affirmed funder SJ on reconciliation / indefinite term / bankruptcy-as-excuse (Guerrero).
- Samson MCA lawsuit: 4th Dept Russo affirmance plus Erie Elephant.
- Seamless Capital Group lawsuit: Kings denied funder SJ on CPLR 4518 foundation and damages math (Bryan Anthonys).
If your caption is Spin collecting after a Nassau-style SJ and RICO counterclaim fight, Bridgelink is the published Second Department signal. Read it next to Crystal Springs before treating either case as the whole Department rule.
Related funder lawsuit pages
Our MCA lawsuit tracker tracks Spin Capital together with the other funders we have researched.
- LG Funding lawsuit
- Principis Capital lawsuit
- Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit
- Apollo Funding lawsuit
- Diesel Funding lawsuit
- Samson MCA lawsuit
- True Business Funding lawsuit
- Richmond Capital lawsuit
- MCA settlement industry news
- Merchant cash advance lawsuit hub
Sources (public)
- Spin Capital, LLC v. Bridgelink Engg., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 02296 (2d Dept Apr. 15, 2026), NY Courts reporter
- Spin Capital, LLC v. Golden Foothill Ins. Servs., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 30594(U) (Sup Ct, NY County Feb. 28, 2023) (Commercial Division; companion recharacterization / RICO discussion)
Takeaway
Treat "Spin Capital lawsuit" search intent primarily through Bridgelink: Nassau granted Spin SJ, dismissed usury/RICO counterclaims, and entered a multimillion-dollar judgment; the Second Department affirmed after finding remittance adjustments, an indefinite term, and no bankruptcy-as-default clause. Golden Foothill adds a New York County companion that refused loan recharacterization on similar three-factor facts. That is a multi-opinion receivables-vs-loan 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.
Also comparing providers? Read our Business Debt Insider review, and confirm any engagement terms directly with BDI.