Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator Part XXVII ($166,043.69 Fox Capital Merchant Cash Advance Default)

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

GARDEN CITY, NY (January 30, 2026) — A civil case involving Fox Capital Group, Inc., a New York-based merchant cash advance lender, and several Connecticut-based limited liability companies operating the Anna & Jack’s Treehouse daycare and preschool chain, along with individual guarantor Robert P. Rubicco Jr., concluded with full satisfaction of a judgment in August 2025.

The case, Index No. 612122/2021, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The summons and verified complaint were filed on September 22, 2021, with the index issued on September 23, 2021.

The plaintiff was Fox Capital Group, Inc., represented throughout by Lieberman and Klestzick, LLP, specifically Yonatan Klestzick, Esq.

The defendants were 770 Treehouse LLC d/b/a Anna & Jack’s Treehouse, 629 Treehouse LLC, 770 Treehouse LLC (listed twice, likely as an affiliated or duplicate entity), Rub Enterprises LLC, Anna & Jack’s Treehouse LLC, and Robert P. Rubicco Jr., the personal guarantor and principal/owner of the LLCs. Rubicco’s address was referenced as 3 Kensington Oval, New Rochelle, NY 10805, with business operations at 770 Connecticut Ave, Norwalk, CT 06854.

The action was a commercial breach of contract claim arising from a future receivables purchase agreement dated July 1, 2021. Under the agreement, Fox Capital purchased $236,250 of the defendants’ future receivables (15% of future receivables) for a net funding amount of $175,000 after fees and origination costs. The estimated daily or periodic remittance was $1,968.75 based on prior revenues.

The agreement included ACH authorization from a designated account, exclusive remittance of receipts, and provisions that a breach would trigger acceleration of the full purchased amount as damages. It explicitly disclaimed being a loan with any interest rate or fixed term. Robert P. Rubicco Jr. signed the personal guarantee.

Defendants allegedly defaulted by stopping remittances around August 12, 2021, without notice. Approximately $39,790 had been paid ($33,530 initially plus $6,260 later), leaving a remaining balance of about $196,460 plus a $5,000 default fee, totaling around $201,460 plus costs, fees, and interest.

In September 2021, the plaintiff sought emergency relief, including an ex parte injunction and restraining order to freeze bank accounts at Signature, Chase, Bank of America, and HSBC up to approximately $207,720. Supporting documents included an affidavit from Yosef Rapoport, managing member of Fox Capital, with personal knowledge and file review; an emergency affirmation from Yonatan Klestzick; and a memorandum of law. A proposed and signed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order was issued on September 27, 2021, by Judge Robert J. Arnold, returnable November 4 or 9, 2021.

In December 2021, the parties entered a stipulation of settlement on December 5 for a total balance of $202,720. It required $45,000 from Intuit-held funds, minimum monthly payments of $3,500 starting January 3, 2022, revenue true-up if increases occurred, and an extra $15,000 good-faith payment over three to five months. Rubicco signed personally for all LLCs as owner, and Steve Nelken signed for Fox Capital. The stipulation included a CPLR 3215(i) clause allowing immediate default judgment on breach via affidavit, forbearance only while compliant with no cure on default, mutual releases upon full payment, and UCC-3 termination. A separate stipulation on December 23 sought to vacate the September 27 order to show cause and discontinue the action without costs, also signed by Rubicco personally and submitted for so-order by Judge Robert A. McDonald.

Intuit is mentioned only once—in the December 5, 2021 settlement stipulation. That agreement required defendants to pay $45,000 toward the $202,720 balance “via conditional release from the funds held at Intuit.” This refers to payroll-related funds (likely advances, reimbursements, or withholdings) held by Intuit Payroll Services that had been restrained or made accessible after Fox Capital’s September 2021 emergency motion to freeze assets. The $45,000 release was part of roughly $50,000 paid early before the settlement breached. Intuit was never a party, never sued, and faced no allegations; it served only as a third-party custodian of defendants’ money targeted for partial recovery. After the 2021 breach, Intuit is not referenced again in any later filings, including the 2022 judgment, 2023 contempt motion, November 2023 final settlement, or August 2025 satisfaction.

This limited Intuit reference has no connection to the separate Intuit Payroll Services judgment against Robert P. Rubicco Jr. and related entities. That unrelated case, involving unreimbursed payroll advances (originally ~$85,000 from ~2015), was litigated in Westchester County and satisfied for over $195,000 in August 2025. The two matters involve different creditors, debts, courts, and facts; their final payoffs coincidentally occurred in the same month but are entirely distinct.

In January 2022, the court declined to so-order one stipulation. The settlement was partially performed with about $50,000 paid, including the Intuit release and some monthly payments, but was breached due to missed payments, financials, or revenue adjustments.

In mid-2022, an affidavit of breach from Rapoport supported a CPLR 3215(i) default judgment application. Judgment was entered on July 20, 2022, against all defendants for $166,043.69 (a reduced balance after credits and negotiations), docketed July 25, 2022.

In September 2023, the plaintiff moved for civil contempt under CPLR 5251 and Judiciary Law §750 for non-response to a post-judgment information subpoena. Supporting materials included an affirmation and memorandum from Klestzick and exhibits. An order to show cause to hold in contempt was issued by Hon. Felice J. Muraca on September 25, 2023, returnable October 11, 2023.

Affidavits of due diligence in October 2023 showed failed service attempts, with notes that owners were out on vacation at the New Rochelle address.

Defendants’ counsel, Robert C. Jacovetti, Esq., of Jacovetti Law, P.C., first appeared on November 15–16, 2023, requesting adjournment of a November 21 deposition due to Thanksgiving travel. A stipulation adjourned it to November 30 at noon, so-ordered by Muraca on November 21.

On November 30, 2023, a final stipulation of settlement was reached for the $166,043.69 total balance. It required a $10,000 initial payment on December 1, 2023, via wire or check; included a CPLR 3215(i) default judgment provision on breach with a three-business-day cure after email notice; prohibited new MCA financing or payments to other creditors without consent; required full disclosure warranty on holds and liens with breach constituting default; provided mutual broad releases on full payment; and required UCC-3 termination and discontinuance with prejudice.

The judgment was fully satisfied on August 20, 2025. A satisfaction of judgment was filed acknowledging the July 20, 2022, judgment of $166,043.69 as wholly paid, signed and notarized by Yonatan Klestzick.

The case involved primarily Judge Robert A. McDonald in the early phase and later Hon. Felice J. Muraca for 2023 orders, including the contempt order to show cause and so-ordering of the stipulation.

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.