The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants Monaco & Monaco, LLP, Theresa Guss1, Airmont Associates, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a)(1) and (7) because Plaintiff Law Bucks’ alleged and purported contracts, on their face, are unenforceable as a matter of law on a variety of grounds including unconscionability, violative of General Business Law §349 as deceptive, impossibility, and ambiguity. They further argue that any of these grounds standing alone is sufficient to support a Judgment dismissing Law Bucks’ action in its entirety. In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the funding agreements are enforceable and valid. Plaintiff further cross moves to have Monaco & Monaco LLP disqualified as counsel for Ms. Guss. Background The Attorney General has raised concerns that companies that specialize in providing cash advances, generally $1,000 to $7,000, to consumers with pending personal injury litigation could exploit consumers due to the complex nature of the transactions (see ag.ny.gov/press-release/2005, “Personal Injury Cash Advance Firms Agree To Reforms”). In exchange for the funds, these companies obtain the right to receive a share of the claim proceeds, an amount which significantly exceeds the advance. The Attorney General and these personal injury cash advance firms have agreed to specific requirements that must be present in all agreements to protect consumers (see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 32). Factual Allegations On November 5, 2005 Ms. Guss was seriously injured when she stepped in a large, rectangular, deep hole while exiting a taxicab in front of 116 and 118 Ainslie Street, Brooklyn. New York City Department of Environmental Protection had excavated in the area approximately six weeks prior to Ms. Guss’s injury. Ms. Guss sustained a fractured hip as a result of the fall. The case was tried before a Kings County Jury, and on June 11, 2013, a jury verdict was rendered in favor of Ms. Guss and against the City of New York in the amount of $2,798,500.00, of which $2,025,600.00 was for future medical costs. Due to her poor health, Ms. Guss was unable to testify or appear at the trial. On February 1, 2017, liability was upheld on appeal to the Second Department, but future medical costs were reduced to $681,600.00. On March 15, 2017, Ms. Guss and the City of New York orally settled the case for $2,100,000.00 with a reduction of the Medicaid lien to $137,426.00. On or about February 19, 2017, PIF Portfolio Acquisition I, LLC d/b/a MFL CaseFunding (herein “CaseFunding”) contacted Defendants’ counsel claiming a lien in the amount of $2,838,487.65 for two loans of $1500.00 and $2500.00, allegedly made on February 3, 2006 and February 21, 2006. Ms. Guss was represented by another attorney at that time. On May 18, 2017, Defendants’ counsel was notified by CaseFunding that it was assigning any rights it had to the nominal defendant, Airmont. Prior to the execution of formal settlement documents, on June 22, 2017, Plaintiff Law Bucks contacted Defendants’ counsel and the City of New York by letter, Supreme Kings Index number 8353-2006, and alleged that Law Bucks was owed an amount in excess of the 2.1 million dollar settlement for three alleged loans totaling $16,816.77 ($11,186.77 on July 5, 2007, $2815.00 on August 14, 2007 and $2815.00 on September 12, 2007). On July 18, 2017 Airmont e-filed the previously mentioned action in New York County under Index Number 654858-2017, and on July 24, 2017, Law Bucks e-filed the present action. Ms. Guss became bedridden in 2012 and resided in a nursing home until entering hospice and passing away on January 18, 2018. The Funding, Agreements Plaintiff contends that on or about July 5, 2007, Plaintiffs employee Marvin Blue met with Ms. Guss and her counsel Antonio Monaco, Esq. at Monaco’s office and provided the Funding Agreement (hereinafter “Funding Agreement #1) to them for review, along with an Attorney Security Interest Payment and Acknowledgement (hereinafter “Attorney Agreement #1). (NYSCEF Doc. No. 67;
