Martin v Palisades Collection, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Martin v Palisades Collection, LLC 2013 NY Slip Op 33204(U) January 8, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116099/10 Judge: Donna M. Mills Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNEDON1/15/2013------------------ [* 1] I',,, I, ,,. _- PRESENT : DONNA M. MILLS Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - 1·--· _____ _:_ __________________ ·__---· ..... ' ·. '.Jl6099/f0 ' . ¢ · . INDEX No. · ·.FRAN MART!N, et.al., Plaintin: · -v- PALISADES COLLECTION, LLC, et aL " Respondc\1ts. I ', " f I LE Gio;rc#<CALNQ~_ f ·. ,,tAl\l 14 2013 · ... · . ·.· ... The following papers, numbcrcd.1 to _j_~ were'ffiliclc)n tliis nibtidn for· - ,· .. ' ' ···.·-.. · . . ' · ·.- ...... NevivORK ..... _-· ',.- .;'' .... ¢... . · . CoUNTY CLERK'S OFRelfRs N'uMs EitED -.I .-:;i. ', ~·· .· ¢ .Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause-Affidavits- Exhibits .... i ···· .. ¢. 1 , ' : I ' ' I " ' ,' ~ ' ' ' ' ' !' ' ' , I " 34 I ; ¢,· ·; ¢ : :~; ;·'" ¢·:'·"··I · · ·Replying Affidavits_________-- ¢., _ ..... ,.--::-~·-'·'- _ . ___._ -----,..-----.. CROSS-MOTION:. ' 1' ', .DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE .. 1 Da.tcd: Check one: ' ' , ' i ¢. I ('t/16 ··.·.~-· . . I ' wrrn ATTACHED ORDER. ··~ . ' . ,' ' '', ', b-- -L~Q . .. YliS ' UJpon the foregoing ¢papers, it is otdered that this niotionis: · · .. '' . . ··· ' Answering Affidavits- Exhibits_ _ _ _ _ _~--. " ".I'\· ·· ¢ ' 1,~'' I ,' ,, , ' FINAL DISPOSITION ' .. · . ' ' ' .. J,J;;.t;; ·. ··_... . ' ' . .· _bo~~~fl~s/e~1/s.c. · 1, '' i '',, ' ,1,',: [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 58 -------------------------------------- x FRAN MARTIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Other New York Residents Who Have Been Sued In the New York Courts, or Have Been Threatened With Such Suit, By Defendants to Collect on Consumer Credit Card Debt on Credit Cards Issued by Heritage Chase And As To Which There Has Been No Credit Card Activity in the Prior Three Years, Despite the Fact that Such Lawsuits Are Time-Barred Under the Delaware Statute of Limitations As Made Applicable By New York's Borrowing Statute, Plaintiff, - against- Index No. 116099/2010 DECISION AND ORDER \ f\l.ED I PAL:~ADES COLLECTION, LLC, and KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C., ~' \ J~l'-\ '\ 4 'lQ,3 \ \ \ -------------------------~~=~~~~~=~~~~ DONNA M. MILLS, J.S.C.: Plaintiff moves for reargument on the ground that the court erred in denying its motion for disclosure of all debtors actually sued by either of defendants for Chase Heritage credit card debt that was time-barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations, regardless of whether such debtors had been threatened with suit prior to being sued. Plaintiff also .. s12eks clarificat·ion .that the··production must include only tJmebarred claims. Additionally, plaintiff seeks a protective order and 1 [* 3] production of "all documents that concern the accounts." A motion for leave to reargue, pursuant to CPLR 2221, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing "that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision [ ci ta ti on omitted]" ( Will.iam P. Corp. v Kassisr 182 AD2d 22, 27 Pahl Equipment [l3t Dept 1992]). The motion is granted, and, upon reargument, plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants are directed to identify and produce documents relating to no more than fifty debtors on time-barred credit card debt issued by Chase a/k/a Heritage Chase, who were actually sued, and no more than fifty such debtors, who were threatened with suit by defendants Palisades Collection, LLC (Palisades) and/or the law firm Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. (the Kirschenbaum firm), but not actually sued. Not all cases where an action is brought to collect a timebar red debt are violations of the FDCPA (see People v Boyajian Law Officesr P.C. r 17 Misc 3d 1119[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52077[Ul (Sup Ct, NY County 2007]; Harvey v Great Seneca Financial Corp. r 453 F 3d 324, 330 [6Lh Cir 2006]; Freyermuth v Credit Bureau Servicesr Inc. r 248 F3d 767, 770 [8th Cir 2001]; but see Diaz v Portfolio Recovery Associatesr LLCr Ct ED NY 2012] 2012 WL 1882976 * 1 [US Dist [upholding the sufficiency of a complaint to 2 [* 4] .. collect a time-barred debt, that alleged that the defendant had not meaningfully reviewed the complaint and knew there was no factual basj.s for such action]; Kimber v Fed. Fin. Corp., 668 F Supp 1480 [MD Ala 1987] [holding that filing a time-barred suit without having first detennined after a reasonable inquiry that the limitations period had been tolled, was a violation of the FDCPA]) . Thus, regardless of whether the mere filing of a lawsuit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA, without any allegations of a prior threat or other prohibited communications, plaintiff's discovery demand for complaints actually filed on time-barred Chase/Heritage credit card accounts is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Abrams v Pecile, 83 AD3d 527, 528 [1" 1 Dept 2011]). Thus, the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for disclosure of persons who had actually been sued on time-barred Chase Heritage credit card debt. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reargument is granted; and it is further ORDERED that, upon reargument, the motion of plaintiff Fran Martin for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 is granted only to the extent of compeJ.ling the Kirschenbaum firm to produce documentation and respond to interrogatories compiling no more 3 [* 5] than 50 individuals that it threatened with suit in connection with the Chase accounts but did not actually sue, and fifty individuals, against whom an action was actually commenced, either on behalf of Palisades or any other client, on time-barred debt, no earlier than one year prior to the commencement of this action, and up to the present, and is otherwise denied. Dated: E N T E R: s. c. OtlNNA NL IVHLLS. ,J.8.C. J. FI LED JA \ 14 2013 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S Office 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.