Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator Part XXVI ($317,457 Samson Merchant Cash Advance Default)

Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator: Table of Contents

BUFFALO, NY (January 29, 2026) — A New York State Supreme Court judge has awarded Samson MCA LLC a $317,457 judgment against a Connecticut-based daycare operator and his affiliated companies after finding they defaulted on a 2021 revenue purchase agreement.

Hon. Mark J. Grisanti granted Samson MCA LLC summary judgment on August 31, 2022, following a motion filed June 29, 2022. The judgment, entered October 17, 2022, in Erie County, includes $286,897 in principal plus $30,560.43 in 9% interest accruing from August 6, 2021, the date of default.

The case centered on a May 25, 2021 Revenue Purchase Agreement in which Samson advanced $200,000 to Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC and 770 Treehouse, LLC d/b/a Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, LLC in exchange for $260,000 of future receivables at 25% of weekly receipts (initial estimated remittance $1,027.02). Robert P. Rubicco Jr. personally guaranteed performance.

Samson alleged defendants remitted only $41,260 before payments stopped around September 10, 2021, with ACH debits blocked and receipts diverted. The remaining balance accelerated to $286,897.

Defendants, represented initially by Alexander M. Dudelson, Esq., filed an answer and counterclaims asserting the transaction was a criminally usurious loan exceeding 25% under New York Penal Law § 190.40, fraud in the inducement, economic duress, unclean hands, and an illusory reconciliation clause.

They also referenced prior agreements with Vox Funding LLC (January 29, 2021) to argue overlapping receivable pledges.

This is a typical MCA Default defense.

Grisanti dismissed the counterclaims entirely on April 13, 2022, ruling the transaction was not a loan (mandatory reconciliation, no fixed term, no bankruptcy recourse) and General Business Law § 349 (deceptive practices) inapplicable to commercial deals.

Defendants opposed summary judgment with Rubicco’s affidavit and Dudelson’s affirmation, claiming 118% of receivables were pledged across funders, rendering the arrangement a disguised usurious loan. Plaintiff replied that the agreement contained risk-sharing provisions and no triable issues existed.

The court agreed with Samson, awarding the full amount jointly and severally against all defendants. Notice of entry was served October 19, 2022. Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, on November 17, 2022, but no further appellate action is reflected in public records.

The judgment was fully satisfied on August 13, 2025, when Samson’s counsel, Ariel Bouskila, Esq., filed a satisfaction acknowledging payment in full with $0 remaining unpaid and no outstanding executions.

This case is one of several merchant cash advance disputes involving Rubicco and his Treehouse entities between 2021 and 2022.

What is a Merchant Cash Advance (MCA)?

A merchant cash advance is a form of alternative small-business financing in which a company (the “funder”) provides a lump sum of cash to a merchant in exchange for the right to collect a percentage of the merchant’s future credit-card and other receipts until the agreed total amount is repaid. Unlike a traditional loan, an MCA is structured as a purchase of future receivables rather than a debt with fixed payments and interest. Repayment is typically made through daily or weekly automatic ACH debits from the merchant’s bank account, with the amount varying based on actual receipts. Proponents say MCAs provide fast capital without collateral; critics argue many function like high-interest loans that evade state usury laws because the repayment is tied to revenue rather than a fixed schedule.

This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.