Attorney Gilbert appealed from an order granting Case Cash Funding (CCF) summary judgment in lieu of complaint. CCF sought to recover nearly $23,000 on a contract in which it advanced funds of $7,250 to Gilbert to fund a pending action. The advance was subject to a two percent use fee compounded monthly, along with a yearly use fee of 26.82 percent. The agreement provided that if CCF was obligate to hire counsel to collect money due, Gilbert would be responsible for legal fees. CCF also asserted it had a lien on Gilbert’s legal fees from the lawsuit. Gilbert argued the loan’s terms violated civil and criminal usury laws rendering the agreement unenforceable. Civil Court granted CCF’s motion. On appeal, CCF argued the agreement was an investment, thus, a nonrecourse loan, but the panel found a review of the agreement revealed it was ambiguous if it was a nonrecourse loan, noting CCF indicated Gilbert would be responsible for payment if the lawsuit recovery was inadequate to cover the loan. Thus, as Gilbert established existence of triable issues of fact of the applicability of a usury defense, CCF’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint should not have been granted. Hence, the order was reversed an CCF’s motion denied.