§Why CasetextPricing

Eric M. Berman, P.C., et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Heintz v. Jenkins

    514 U.S. 291 (1995)   Cited 1,131 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “debt collector” as used in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a, includes attorneys notwithstanding the definition's lack of an express reference to lawyers or litigation

  2. Miller v. Wolpoff Abramson, L.L.P.

    321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 998 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that demand for attorneys' fees in collection action did not violate the FDCPA where credit card agreement provided for such fees

  3. Clomon v. Jackson

    988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993)   Cited 899 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the least sophisticated consumer standard applies to whether § 1692e has been violated

  4. Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

    92 N.Y.2d 232 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 476 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through "general knowledge"

  5. Riley v. County of Broome

    95 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 389 times
    Holding that the legislative history of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 evinces an intent to impose “a minimum standard of care” on operators of vehicles engaged in roadwork

  6. Greco v. Trauner, Cohen Thomas, L.L.P.

    412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 267 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding no misrepresentation, and thus no 1692e liability against the debt collector law firm, where the law firm retained by the creditor clearly disclosed in the letter that the law firm was not acting as an attorney

  7. Avila v. Rubin

    84 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 270 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mass-produced dunning letters bearing facsimile of attorney's signature created false and misleading impression that communications were "from" attorney

  8. Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen

    374 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 125 times
    Holding that whether an attorney regularly engages in debt collection is a case-by-case inquiry and outlining several factors to consider in that inquiry

  9. Nielsen v. Dickerson

    307 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that the FDCPA was violated where the attorney "knew nothing about the debtor and her potential liability beyond what [the client] had conveyed to him; and [the client] provided [the attorney] only the bare information that [he] required in order to complete the blanks in his form letter"

  10. People v. Diack

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 1376 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 65 times
    Discussing chapter 568 enacted in 2008

  11. Section 1692e - False or misleading representations

    15 U.S.C. § 1692e   Cited 6,916 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting false representation of the "character, amount, or legal status of a debt"

  12. Section 1692a - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1692a   Cited 6,209 times   83 Legal Analyses
    Defining debt collector

  13. Section 1.1 - Definitions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 23 § 1.1   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    For the purposes of this Part: (a)Charge-off means the accounting action taken by an original creditor to remove a debt obligation from its financial statements by treating it as a loss or expense. (b)Clear and conspicuous means that the statement, representation or term being disclosed is of such size, color, and contrast and/or audibility and is so presented as to be readily noticed and understood by the person to whom it is being disclosed. If such statement is necessary as a modification, explanation