MCA Settlement Reviews
Menu
MCA Settlement Reviews

Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit: what Nassau held in A-Z Imports

Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit coverage of A-Z Imports: Nassau granted funder SJ and flagged a reconciliation addendum but rejected usury as a loan.

Updated

Home · News · Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit

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

A Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit search usually lands on private New York collection litigation naming Unique Funding Solutions LLC (often styled UFS), not a statewide Attorney General enforcement caption. The clearest published trial-level signal is Nassau County's February 17, 2023 decision in Unique Funding Solutions LLC v. A-Z Imports Exports LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50188(U), 78 Misc 3d 1209(A). That opinion granted the funder summary judgment for $92,435.60 after a criminal-usury defense failed, even while the court called part of the reconciliation addendum "alarming." 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 Nassau County Slip Opinion only. Not legal advice.

Quick answer

ItemPublic record
Lead published caseUnique Funding Solutions LLC v. A-Z Imports Exports LLC d/b/a Dollar Groceries, 2023 NY Slip Op 50188(U), 78 Misc 3d 1209(A) (Sup Ct, Nassau County Feb. 17, 2023) (Cairo, J.)
Index611467/2022
OutcomeFunder's CPLR 3212 motion granted; judgment awarded $92,435.60 (plus statutory costs/disbursements on proposed judgment)
Merchant / guarantorA-Z Imports Exports LLC; personal guaranty by Kwesi Amos Snyper
Core disputeBreach on a Standard Merchant Cash Advance Agreement; merchant opposed with usury-as-loan and documentary-sufficiency arguments

Soft next step if papers name Unique Funding Solutions or UFS: compare your reconciliation / addendum wording to the "if and when" reply-email language the court flagged before you assume either side's label controls.

What Nassau County held

The parties' Standard Merchant Cash Advance Agreement sold future receivables valued at $209,850 for a $150,000 purchase price, collected at a specified 21% until the purchased amount was paid. Snyper signed a personal guaranty. Unique alleged the merchant intentionally impeded remittances while still operating and collecting revenue.

On the funder's summary-judgment motion, Yaakov Winograd (authorized representative) stated Unique funded on April 11, 2022 (purchase price minus fees and payoffs to other entities), that payments stopped on or about August 17, 2022, and that the merchant had paid $119,914.40, leaving $89,935.60 of the purchase amount plus a contractual default fee. Unique also submitted a business-record affidavit with the MCA, a funding confirmation, and a pay-run listing.

Defendants answered with a counsel memorandum arguing Unique failed a prima facie documentary showing and that the MCA was an unlawful usurious loan. They did not submit an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the facts.

Justice Cairo applied the Second Department three-factor receivables test (Principis / LG Funding): reconciliation provision, finite vs. indefinite term, and bankruptcy recourse.

  • Paragraph 15 of the MCA said the purchase price was not a loan and Unique assumed the risk that the business might decline or fail.
  • Events of Default (Paragraph 34) included suspension, dissolution, or termination of the business, but excluded bankruptcy.
  • The base MCA reconciliation clause said Unique "will" reconcile within two business days after a proper written request and will credit over-collections within seven days.
  • An Addendum (controlling on conflict) added that a reconciliation email notice is deemed received only "if and when UFS sends a reply email (but not a read receipt)."

The court found that Addendum language alarming: it raised whether reconciliation was discretionary and whether the deal looked like a finite-term loan. Nonetheless, viewing the MCA as a whole, the court held repayment was not absolute. Monthly payments could change on a proper request, so the term was not finite, and bankruptcy was not a default. Unique made out a prima facie breach case. Defendants' counsel-only memo raised no triable issue. Summary judgment granted for $92,435.60.

Why this matters for "Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit" searches

This is a funder-side Nassau SJ win that still flags drafting risk on reconciliation "receipt" mechanics. Compare:

If your caption is Unique Funding Solutions collecting after remittances stop, A-Z Imports is the published Nassau signal that an alarming reply-email addendum did not, on those papers, convert the deal into an absolute loan once bankruptcy was excluded and payments could still flex. A different record (personal-knowledge opposition, different addendum, or bankruptcy-as-default) can push a court the other way.

Related funder lawsuit pages

The MCA lawsuit tracker collects this case with other funder litigation so you can compare outcomes and courts.

Sources (public)

Takeaway

Treat "Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit" search intent primarily through Nassau County's A-Z Imports Slip Opinion: funder summary judgment for $92,435.60 after the court flagged an "alarming" reconciliation-receipt addendum but still found no absolute loan on the three-factor test, then granted SJ because defendants opposed with counsel memo only. That is a drafting-plus-proof 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.