Horizon Capital NY L.P. v. Right Time Auto. LLC

Horizon Capital NY L.P. v Right Time Auto. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 31002(U) March 16, 2026 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 518653/2025 Judge: Reginald A. Boddie Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5186532025.KINGS.001.LBLX036_TO.html[03/24/2026 3:45:47 PM] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 518653/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026

At an IAS Commerc ial Part 12 of the upreme ourt of the tate of ew York hel d in and for the County of Kings , at the Courthouse. located at 360 Adam treet, Borough of Brook I n, Cit and tat of " York on the 161h day of March 2026.

PR ES E T: Honorable Reginald . Boddie Justice, upreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------x HORIZO CAPITAL Y LP.

Plaintiff [ndex o. 518653/2025 -against- a.I. o. 12 MS r

RIGHT TIME AUTOMOTIV ~ LLC D/B/ JO RIVE.

DO GLAS M KURZ Y SKI LUM LLC ID E L G & PA LL . and RfGHT TIME UTOMOTIVE, Deci ion and Order Defendant .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x The following e-filed papers read herein: NY CEF Doc Nos. M 5 85-104 Plaintiff motion for summary judgment against pro e defendant Douglas Kurzy nski is decided as follows: Backgrou nd This action arises out of an alleged breach of a May 1, 2025 ale of Future Rec ipt Agreement (the Agreement'") , pur uant to which plai ntiff purcha ed 449,700 of future receivables of defendant Right Time utomotive LLC d/b/a iDrive ("Au tomotive") for a "00.000 purchas price, to be deli er d through remittances of24.05 % of Automoti e·s timated a erage sales revenue each weekday. T h Agre ment provided for a Net Funded mount of 250,000, reflecting the total fund to be deposited after deduction of a 50,000 origination fee, to be

[* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 518653/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 disbursed in two payment or 165 ,000 and $85,000 on pril 29. 2025 . Plaintiff alleges utomotive defaulted on May 23 2025, triggering an acceleration of the Agreement and leaving an unpaid balance of $434,754.92. Plaintiff further ues guarantor Dougla M. Kurzynsk i ('' Kurzyn ki. ') Lumo LL ("'L umo "), Idea un & Pa n LLC (--Gun·'), and Right 1111 utomotive ("Right'") on a guaranty of performance.

By Decision and Order dated October 30, 2025. the ourt denied defendant · motion to dismiss the complaint in its ntir ty and granted plaintiffs motion to dismis defendants· counterclaims and strike a ll affim1ative defense . By the same Deci ion and Ord r, th Court granted plaintiffs motion for default judgment against Automoti e. Lumas. Gun, and Ri gh t (collectively the ·'Bu ine Def ndants· l Judgment. was entered again L the Bu ines Delendants jointly and severally, in the total amount of 458,233.51 on December 22, 2025. The Court further ordered that the a tion against Kurzy nski , who filed a pro se answer on Jul y 9. 2025. be cvered .

Additionally, on October 23, 2025 plaintiff fi led a motion again t Kurzyn ki, se king an order pur uant to PLR 3042(c) and CPLR 3124, compelling defendant to pro ide court-ordered discovery within 20 days under penalty of striking defendant"s answer and rendering a judgment against defendant. By Decision and Order dated January 20, 2026, th Court directed d fendan t to provide docum nts responsi e to plaintiffs d cument demand reque t or a .Jackson affida it describing his efforis to locate the reque ted information within 30 days of notice of entry of th Decision and Order.

Plain ti ff now mo for summary judgment under CP R 3212 against Kurz, nski for the principal amount f $434,754.82, plus tatutory inter st at 9% from the date of the br ach on May 23, 2025 with costs and disbursements . Plaintiff argues that ections 3, 14(e) and 30(a) of the Agreement were breached wh n Automoti e instructed its bank to dishonor the .CH wit hd rawal to which plaintiff is contractually entitled. P laintiff al o contend that defendant breached ections

[* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 518653/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 l 3(b) and 30(e) of the Agreement by entering into oth r agreements for the ale f future receivables without plaintiff con ent.

In oppo ition , defendant argu s that plaintiff did not fully fund the agreed el Funded Amount, creating economic duress and causing defendant to default and enter into subsequent receivables purchase agreements. rn r ply plaintiff argues that defendant fails to dispute the fact rele ant to the breaches of the greem nt and fail to submit any documentary evidence to upport his claim.

Discus ion It is well establi hed that summary judgm nt is warranted when "the proponent makes a prima facie showi ng of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material i sue of fact and the opponent fai I to rebut that showing'· (Brandy B. v Eden Cent. chool Dist. , I 5 Y3d 297 302 [201 O] [citation omitted]).

Once the proponent has made a prima facie showing, the burden then hifl to the motion· .

opponent to pre ent identiar facts in admi ible form suffici nt to rai ea genuine, triable i u of fact (Zuckerman v City of ew York, 49 Y2d 557, 562 [1980]). If there i any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact the motion for ummary judgment must be denied (Roruba Extruders v eppo , 46 Y2d 22.., , 23 I [ I 978]). Upon a moti n for summary judgment, th courf s function is one of issue finding rather than is ue d termination (Sillman ,, Twentieth Cent111 y -rr Jx Film Corp., 3 Y2d 395, 404 [1957]). "It i not the function of a court . .. to make credibility determinations or findings of fact, but rather to id ntify material triabl issu s or fact (or point to the lack thereof)" ( Vega v Resfani Constr. Corp .. 18 YJd 499. 50r [201211.citation omittedl) .

Here, plaintiff has made a prima facie hawing of entit lement to judgment a a matter of law. The document of record, including the Agreement, wire confirmations, and supporting

[* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 518653/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 affirmations, estab li h the xist nee of a valid r ceivable purcha e agreement and guaranty.

plaintiffs full performance thereunder by funding Automotive, and defendant's breach s.

Section 3 of the Agreement requires utomolive lo deliver the purchased receivab les through periodic ACH debits from an authorized account and ection 14( ) of the gr ement authorizes plaintiff to initiate such ACH debit entries. ection l 3(b) of the greement further prohibits Automoti e from entering into other agre ments for the sa le of future receivables without plaintiff' prior written consent.

In addition ection "0(a) of the greement provide that the guarantor agr to guaran te utomotive s prompt and comp! te p rforman e of its obligation . including the obligation not to revoke authorization to debit an authori ed account or to take any action that interferes with plaintiffs rights under the Agreement. ection 30(e) further provides that the guarantor guarante th obligation not to enter into an other agreem nt for the ale of future receivabl , without plaintiff' prior written con ent.

The record reflects that multip le A H debit attempts were dishonor d and re ulted in ACTI R turn Code R08. Th record also reflect that utomotive entered into additional receivable.

purchase agreement without plaintiffs consent.

The Court notes that the principal amount of 434,754.82 sought by plaintiff includ ( 1) 324,783.40 in unpaid balance; (2) 140 in N F return fee : and (3) defau lt charg s. The ourt forth r not s that plaintiffs ubmi sion r fleet inconsistenci sin the principal amount sought and the amount attributed to default charg , while the unpaid balance and the r tum fe s remain unchanged. By the Court's calculation, the default charges repre. ent approximately 33% to 34% of the unpaid principal amount.

uch d fault-related ft es und r a merchant-cash-ad ance agre ment and guaranty are not enforceable when '[p]laintiff has not e tablished (or attempted t e tabli h) that these fees

[* 4] 4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 04:34 PM INDEX NO. 518653/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 105 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026 constitute a reasonable advance estimate of difficult-to-calculate damages, as required for the fees to be collectible liquidated damage , rather than impermis ible penal tie (. ee Irwin Funding LLC v Adrian Valdez Tramp., LL , 80 Mi c 3d 1210( ) [ up Ct 2023]). Plaintiff ha made no such sh wing here. Accordingly. the branch of plaintiffs motion eek ing ummary judgment on the default charge is denied .

Defendant fails to raise a triable i ue of fact and merely as erts conclu ory all egation without presenting evidentiary facts. The Court notes that defi ndant failed to specify the amount of the alleged fundin g deficiency and d fendant's cont ntion that plaintiff failed to fund the greement as required is directly contradicted by the record.

Conclu ion Ba ed on the foregoing, plaintiff motion for summary judgment is grant d with resp ct to the unpaid balance and the r turn fee , and judgment i entered agai nst defendant Kurzynski in the sum of $324,923.40 plu statutory inter st from May 23, 202 ~, togeth r with cost and di bur ements as calculated by the Clerk. Plaintiff shall file and serve a proposed judgment within twenty (20) da of th entry of thi De ision and Order.

Any argument not specifi ally addr s d herein have b en con ·idcred and arc either without merit or rendered moot by the Court's determination.

E TE R: /t}<J~ Honorable Reginald A. Boddie Ju tic Supreme ourt HON. REGINALD A. sooo,E J.S.C,

[* 5] 5 of 5