Court Permits Pro Se Individual To Sue As Assignee Of LLC’s Claims, Overruling Objection That LLC’s Must Appear In Court Through Legal Counsel

Posted: October 28, 2026 / Written by: Channing J. Turner / Categories Commercial, Motion to Dismiss

Court Permits Pro Se Individual To Sue As Assignee Of LLC’s Claims, Overruling Objection That LLC’s Must Appear In Court Through Legal Counsel

On October 6, 2026, in Webb v. Infusion Capital Group LLC, Index No. 659826/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint brought by an individual appearing pro se, both on his own behalf and as assignee of a limited liability company’s claims. The action arises from an alleged agreement to purchase future receivables from RP Palm Beach LLC, which does business as Roxy’s Pub. Plaintiff John Webb sought declarations that defendants lacked authority to enforce the agreement or, alternatively, that the agreement was a criminally usurious loan. Defendants moved under C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(3) and 321(a), arguing that the LLC lacked capacity because it had not obtained a certificate of authority to do business in New York, and that a corporate entity may not appear without counsel. The Court found that defendants offered no evidence that the LLC was doing business in New York, and it also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for sanctions. On the pro se issue, the Court explained:

In Traktman, the Second Department upheld an assignment from a corporation to an individual pro se litigant, expressly stating that “the statutory prohibition [against a corporation appearing pro se] does not extend to an assignee of a corporation, despite the fact that the assignment may have been made to circumvent the statutory prohibition” . . . . Likewise, in Kinlay, the First Department recognized that an assignee may obtain all the corporation’s claims and proceed pro se, deeming such an assignment “a perfectly legitimate tactic” to avoid CPLR 321(a).

. . . .

By contrast, this record reflects an assignment of RP Palm Beach’s claims to John Webb and is unambiguous as to the scope of the claims assigned. Defendants cite no provision in the future receivables purchase agreement or other related agreements that restrict assignability of the claims asserted here. Under General Obligations Law § 13-101, all claims are freely assignable absent such a restriction, and defendants offer no contrary authority. Its sole objection is that the assignment served a litigation purpose. However, both Traktman and Kinlay confirm that an assignment designed to avoid CPLR 321(a) is permissible.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning the assignment of claims by corporate entities and pro se appearances in the Commercial Division.

To read more about C.P.L.R. 321(a)’s requirement that entities appear through counsel, see Schlam Stone & Dolan’s related Commercial Division Blog posts on a decision holding that a corporation may avoid the prohibition on pro se corporate appearances by assigning its claim to a different plaintiff and a decision holding that a limited liability company must appear through counsel and is subject to default if it fails to retain new counsel.