Berkovitch & Bouskila PLLC: The MCA Plaintiff Law Firm, Its BBB F Rating, and What to Do If Its Name Is on Your Papers

Who is Berkovitch & Bouskila PLLC?

Berkovitch & Bouskila, PLLC is a professional limited liability company started June 24, 2016, with a BBB address at 1545 Route 202, Suite 101, Pomona, New York, and a Manhattan phone number. Its partners are Steven Berkovitch and Ariel Bouskila. The BBB lists it under Lawyers, Collections Agencies, and Litigation Lawyers, opened its file on June 22, 2022, and rates it F for two stated reasons: three complaints filed against the business, and failure to respond to those three complaints. It is not BBB accredited.

Its work is visible in the published decisions. In Propella Capital, LLC v K&J Construction Co. LLC (Supreme Court, New York County, December 13, 2022), the firm, with Ariel Bouskila of counsel, represented a funder suing a North Carolina contractor and its principal on a merchant cash advance agreement. A New York debt defense firm's 2021 article names Berkovitch & Bouskila, alongside Zachter PLLC and The Feldman Law Firm, as the firms it most often sees obtaining default judgments on behalf of MCA lenders.

What the firm is not: a funder. An earlier version of this page described Berkovitch & Bouskila with a funder template, discussing its factor rates and reconciliation terms. A law firm has neither. Those belong to the funder named in your agreement.

Why Berkovitch & Bouskila is contacting you

Because a funder retained it after declaring your account in default. The contact is usually a demand letter on firm letterhead, then a summons and complaint filed in New York regardless of where your business is. The Propella decision shows why New York: the funding agreement's Section 11 made New York County the exclusive venue and had the merchant and its principal consent to New York jurisdiction in advance, and the court held that this consent foreclosed the out-of-state defendants' jurisdictional challenge. Expect the same clause in your agreement.

The same decision shows the firm cross-moving for sanctions against the merchant's lawyer for making what the court called weak and unpersuasive arguments that had failed four times before. The court denied sanctions but did not reach whether it would sanction a fifth repeat. The lesson for a business owner is that a boilerplate motion to dismiss on jurisdiction is unlikely to work against this firm; the defenses that have worked in New York MCA cases turn on the funder's proof of funding, the reconciliation clause, and the character of the transaction.

What the BBB record shows

Three complaints in three years, none answered, which is what drives the F. The public reviews on the profile are from people who received collection notices from the firm: one for an account the reviewer says was paid in full, for more than $32,000; one on behalf of a roofer who, the reviewer says, had not done the contracted work, for a figure more than ten times the contract balance; and one calling for the firm to be investigated for representing predatory lenders.

Read those for what they are: unverified accounts from one side. What they have in common is useful, though. Each is a dispute over whether the underlying balance is real, and the firm did not answer any of them through the BBB. If you dispute the balance, do it in writing to the firm and, if a case is filed, in your answer to the court. The BBB channel does not reach this firm.

What to establish from your own paperwork

• Which funder the firm represents. The caption on any filing names it. That agreement governs everything.
• The venue and jurisdiction clause. If you consented to New York, you will be sued in New York. Plan for it rather than fighting it.
• Purchase price versus purchased amount, and what has been paid. Bank statements for every debit. The reviews above are disputes about the balance; yours will be too.
• The reconciliation clause and your requests. In writing, dated, with financials. This is where New York courts have denied funders summary judgment.
• Personal guaranty and confession of judgment. The guaranty is what puts the principal in the caption next to the business.
• The deadline. Twenty or thirty days from service depending on how you were served. Miss it and the balance plus fees becomes a judgment.

If you have been served

Answer. Default judgments are the firm's most common outcome according to the defense bar, and they are avoidable. An answer preserves the reconciliation and proof-of-funding defenses; a jurisdiction motion, as Propella shows, usually does not. See what to do when Berkovitch & Bouskila sues.

Can a balance the firm is collecting be settled?

Yes. The funder it represents decides what to accept, and settlements before judgment are common in these cases. The room is the gap between the accelerated balance with fees and what the funder can prove and collect, weighed against its litigation cost. It narrows sharply after a judgment. See how a balance Berkovitch & Bouskila is collecting can be settled and how MCA debt relief works.

Business Debt Adjusters reviews the agreement, the debit history and any letters or filings, and tells you what is realistic before you commit to anything.

Sources

• BBB Business Profile: Berkovitch & Bouskila, PLLC, Pomona, NY (F rating, complaints, reviews)
• Propella Capital, LLC v K&J Constr. Co. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 51276(U), Supreme Court, New York County, December 13, 2022
• Lebedin Kofman LLP, Merchant Cash Advance Lawsuits and Judgments, June 23, 2021

Facts on this page were checked against the linked sources on September 23, 2026. Business Debt Adjusters is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized to represent the company described.