True, wasn't really thinking of using a method like this in a huge program or O(n) at all.
If the array was never very long than reallocating wouldn't be all that bad.

Also, no need for 'else' statement after 'return' statement

You just turned a O(n) solution into a O(nlgn) solution :p

You are correct, this solution does not change the big-O complexity. It is still O(N). I am sorry if this solution feels too small an improvement. I made a fork of this that is actually in O(sqrt(N)) time.

Well, I don't think the shortcut affects the big-O complexity anyhow. For the worst scenario in both cases, it still equals O(n). But, I appreciate your contribution and see the improvement on the for loop you've made.

Test case for 182 is wrong, should be {8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20}.

I'd also argue that the description should make it clearer that maxConsecutiveSum(2) should be {} instead of {2}. In my opinion, the sum of a single element array is a valid concept.