Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C.

The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. We defend against collection lawsuits, and wage garnishments, and bank seizures.

If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.

SOME OF OUR CASES AGAINST KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS

The Langel Firm has successfully defended consumers in cases brought by Kirschenbaum & Phillips on behalf of original creditors such as Capital One and Discover and debt buyers such as First Financial Investment Fund, Palisades Collection, KMT Enterprises, and Pinnacle Credit Services.

The Langel Firm Overturns $38K Garnishment by LR Credit 4, LLC, represented by Kirschenbaum & Philips, P.C. See the blog here.

We caused dismissal of Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C.'s credit-card case due to its procedural delays. See the blog here.

Facing a $41,986 garnishment by Rushmore Recoveries X, LLC, represented by Kirschenbaum & Philips, P.C., our firm quickly sought dismissal of the garnishment and of the underlying judgment on grounds of lack of legal authority due to defective assignment documentation. We separately threatened the attorneys with retaliatory action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for misrepresentation of the judgment creditor. Rushmore dropped the garnishment, vacated its own judgment, and relinquished the claim for the entire sum of $41,986. (Rushmore Recoveries v. KH, #37828/05, NY Civil Court).

NorthStar Capital Acquisitions, LLC, represented by Kirschenbaum & Philips, P.C., agreed to vacate (overturn) its own judgment of $9,716.97 entered in 2008 and drop its claim for the entire debt. We argued that the judgment was premised on a falsified affidavit of service while producing proof that the process server had his serving license revoked for misconduct. (NorthStar Capital Acquisitions, LLC v. K.H., #27363, NY Civil Court).

OTHER STATE CASES AGAINST KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. Prevails in Upholding Personal Guaranty in Corporate Debt Case

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, overturned a previous judgment involving HSBC Bank USA and the defendant, affirming that the defendant had signed the loan documents in his individual capacity, thereby personally securing the corporate debt. The defendant's claims that he signed only as the company president and wasn't aware of the responsibilities of personal guarantee were deemed insufficient to challenge the unambiguous terms of the credit agreement.

Key Points:

The court upheld that the defendant signed loan documents in his personal capacity, thereby guaranteeing any debt of his company.
The defendant's assertion that he signed the loan documents in his corporate capacity and wasn't informed about the personal guarantee of corporate debts contradicted the explicit terms of the credit agreement and application.
The appellate court overturned the earlier ruling and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, for the outstanding principal balance of $135,848.86.

Case Citation: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. The Defendant, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, April 17, 2013.

FEDERAL CASES AGAINST KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C.

Ruffin v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. - FDCPA and GBL § 349 Claims Analysis

In Ruffin v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., the court analyzed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and General Business Law § 349 (GBL § 349) claims brought by the consumer-plaintiff. The court discussed various allegations made by the plaintiff, including the defendants' awareness of fraudulent practices, compliance with the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), materiality of false statements, meaningful review claim, and vicarious liability. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims but allowed the FDCPA and GBL § 349 claims to proceed. The court also denied the defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment.

**Key Points from Ruffin v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C.:**

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were aware of fraudulent service practices and attempted to collect on default judgments based on false affidavits of service. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations plausibly supported FDCPA violations, allowing the FDCPA claim to proceed.
The defendants argued that the 2019 Income Execution complied with the CPLR and was not misleading. However, the court noted that compliance with the CPLR did not shield the communication from FDCPA liability. The plaintiff's allegations of deceptive practices survived the motion to dismiss.
The defendants contended that the alleged false statements in the 2019 Income Execution were not material. The court stated that it would not consider certain documents at this stage and, therefore, did not decide the issue. The court concluded that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to withstand the defendants' motion based on materiality.
The defendants argued against the plaintiff's "meaningful review claim" under section 1692e(3) of the FDCPA, asserting that a judgment is valid until set aside and further review of the case file is unnecessary. However, the court stated that some degree of attorney involvement is required, and the claim could proceed to discovery.
The court held that the defendants' awareness of the fraudulent service scheme and their continued enforcement of the collection action despite such knowledge plausibly supported FDCPA and GBL § 349 claims. Vicarious liability of the law firm for FDCPA violations was acknowledged, but the claims against other defendants were dismissed.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim under Jud. Law § 487, stating that the alleged deceit occurred in a post-judgment collection document, not during a pending judicial proceeding.
The defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment was denied due to their failure to submit a Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts and disputed facts requiring a credibility determination.

Case Citation: Ruffin v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., 20-CV-05422 (PMH), 2022 WL 1869076 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2022)

Aguilar v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. - Dismissal of Action for Failure to Prosecute

In Aguilar v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. However, the plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, did not communicate with the court, and did not oppose motions to withdraw by their counsel, resulting in a lack of prosecution for nearly six months. As a result, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Key Points:

Plaintiff Ricarte S. Aguilar, Jr. filed a lawsuit against defendant Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, did not communicate with the court, and did not oppose motions to withdraw by their counsel for nearly six months.
The court considered factors such as the duration of the plaintiff's noncompliance, notice given to the plaintiff, prejudice to the defendant, and the availability of lesser sanctions. Ultimately, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Case Citation: Aguilar v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., No. 11–CV–1085 (SJF)(WDW), 2012 WL 1869076 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012).

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION of KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS, P.C.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips is a New York domestic profession corporation with an office in Levittown, New York.

More information to help with a wage garnishment:

Here is a list of New York City’s Marshals who enforce wage garnishments: