We defend you against
Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP
The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP. In appropriate cases, we may also take action against Fulton, Friedman on your behalf in federal court for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Contact us at (888) 271-7109 for help in your lawsuit.
FEDERAL COURT CASES
The Langel Firm Brings Action against Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP
In a case captioned L.N. v. Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP et al, 12-cv-2529, (E.D.N.Y. 2012), the Langel Firm brought an action against Fulton, Friedman for its use of a letter that misidentified an original creditor as the plaintiff-party in cases it brought on behalf of its debt buyer client, Asset Acceptance, LLP. The letter stated, "[d]ue to the failure to arrange for payment on this account, you are now defendant in the recently filed lawsuit listed below:
Chase Bank USA NA Disney v. Laurie Norberg
Court: Nassau District Court
Case Number: 8953/12
In actuality, the plaintiff in that action was Asset Acceptance, LLC. We contend that Fulton's misrepresentation would deceive the "least sophisticated consumer" as to the real party in interest.
The Langel Firm sued Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLC for bringing an unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuit
Fulton Friedman & Gullace represented a debt buyer, Independent Receivables Corp., for an alleged Bally's Total Fitness gym debt. Rochester-based Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP will now face a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York for what I identify as a deceptive and indefensibly delayed collection lawsuit.
In M.N. v. Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 12-cv-4710, (S.D.N.Y. 2012), we alleged the following claims:
Independence Receivables Corp. had been dissolved by proclamation – and its authority annulled – on July 27, 2011 for what appears to be its failure to comply with tax obligations. Yet it currently maintains at least 2,354 active cases in local New York courts thus violating New York Business Corporation Law. Fulton's first complaint misrepresented a Bally's debt as a credit card debt while it later acknowledged it meant to sue for a defaulted gym membership asserting different interest-accrual dates in two separate complaints.
- Demanding "statutory interest of 9%" without authority by contract or statute.
- Asserting different interest-accrual dates and asserting different and confusing interest types in its two complaints.
- Failing to place its, or its client's, debt collection license number on any of its pleadings.
- Demanding any interest and an annual finance charge, which were not authorized by contract or statute.
While failing to move for a default judgment within one year of our client's alleged default, Fulton Friedman instead moved the court three years later to amend its complaint to correct its false representation of the character of the debt. Fulton offered no reason whatsoever to explain its delay, or explain the cause for the false representation.
Our firm has since appeared in the collection case on behalf of the defendant and we argue that the collection lawsuit must be dismissed for the debt buyer's lack of capacity (not authorized to do business) and for its blatant violation of CPLR §3215(c) for its failure to move for a default within one year – or at least offer an excuse why it failed to do so.
The state collection action is pending.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ABOUT FULTON FRIEDMAN & GULLACE
Fulton, Friedman & Gullace is a New York registered domestic limited liability partnership with its principal place of business located in Rochester, New York. In the State of New York, Fulton Friedman's clients include Independence Receivables Corp., Asset Acceptance, LLC and Bally's Total Fitness.