New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorneys
Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against

Selip & Stylianou, LLP

(formerly Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP)

The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP. In appropriate cases, we may also take action against Selip & Stylianou, LLP (Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP) on your behalf in federal court for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


The Langel Firm Stops Wage Garnishment, Gets Judgment Vacated, Case Discontinued

Our client noticed that his wages were being garnished by a mysterious creditor. He was never served because he was living in Massachusetts at the time the case started. Five years after entry of a judgment, The Langel Firm re-opened the case with irrefutable proof of his Massachusetts residence. Cohen & Slamowitz agreed to immediately stop the garnishment and discontinue the case. MRC Receivables Corp. v. S.M, 158932-06 (Civil Court, Kings County, 2011)

The Langel Firm Unfreezes Bank Account, Gets Judgment Vacated, Case Discontinued

Another common scenario where our California-resident consumer client was sued in NY without living here. A default judgment led to a frozen bank account. Personal jurisdiction was never actually acquired, but through a default judgment, Palisades succeeded in freezing his California bank account by directing a New York bank branch to freeze his accounts. We re-opened the case with irrefutable proof of his California residence. Cohen & Slamowitz, which represented Palisades in the case, agreed to vacate the judgment and discontinue the case immediately. Perhaps it recognized the unfairness of enforcing a judgment knowingly premised on lack of due process. Palisades Acquisition, XVI, LLC v. Darrell B., 116781/09 (Civil Court, Queens County, 2011).

Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP Denied in its Attempt Misstate Exemption Claim Process

Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP improperly attempts to place burden of establishing exempt income on judgment debtor. Midland Funding LLC v Roberts, 37 Misc 3d 617 [Sup Ct 2012].

Facing a lawsuit by Selip & Stylianou, LLP (Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP)?

Contact The Langel Firm at (888) 271-7109 for help.


The Langel Firm Sues Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP for Collection Violations

Our client alleged that Cohen & Slamowitz repeatedly called her after Cohen's certified receipt of a dispute letter specifically demanding the cessation of phone calls. Other allegations include failure to verify the debt and demanding inconsistent amounts. L.N. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 12-02601 (EDNY 2012.)

In a case against Cohen & Slamowitz called D.T. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 12-4331 (EDNY 2012), our claims included:

  • Sending several written letters that demand inconsistent amounts;
  • Failing to comply with several disclosure requirements relating to the verification of debts;
  • Sending two letters on the same day that confused her rights to obtain verification of the debt;
  • Sending unsigned letters purportedly from attorneys raising the inference that no attorney actually prepared the letters.

What could have been a peaceful settlement between our client and Midland Funding turned into a barrage of confusing letters sent by Cohen & Slamowitz, which demanded conflicting amounts and misrepresented the status of the debt. We further alleged that Cohen tacked on interest not permitted by law. M.S. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 12-5391 (SDNY 2012.)

The Langel Firm Alleges A Sequence of False, Deceptive and Misleading Communications by Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP

In the case, Cohen and Slamowitz sent the consumer seven letters over a span of about six and a half months, each of which, we claim, contained at one least violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA".)

Among other allegations, we claim that Cohen and Slamowitz violated the FDCPA by: adding inconsistently and improperly calculated interest amounts to the alleged amount due; improperly adding "court costs" to the alleged amount due; claiming payments of a certain amount were due on a certain date by "agreement," when no agreement had been reached; sending a Notice of Discontinuance, then failing to discontinue the case; sending a collection letter after sending a Notice of Discontinuance; and filing a second case on the same debt while the first case was still active. S.P. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, S.D.N.Y 12-CV-8002

Cohen & Slamowitz Sued for Pursuing Wrong party and Communicating with that Party while Represented by Counsel

In Shapiro v. Cohen &Slamowitz, a person wrongfully targeted at his home for the debt of another person with a similarly spelled name fought back with a federal case of his own. The federal court, similar to our case in Bodur, reaffirmed the FDCPA's protection of people who are targeted because of a debt collector's mistake.


Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP sued by upstate consumer for venue violation

A federal appeals court found that Cohen & Slamowitz broke the law when it sued a consumer in a Syracuse City Court. The FDCPA imposes strict limitations on where a debt collector can sue you. A collector may not sue you in a "judicial district" where you do not reside or did not sign the credit agreement. In Hess, Cohen & Slamowitz, on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC, sued a consumer in Syracuse City Court while the consumer lived the town of Clay, which is not continuous by land to Syracuse. The court interpreted the FDCPA narrowly to carry out the purpose of FDCPA § 1692I(A)2, which is a rule to prevent consumers from being sued in inconvenient courthouses. Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 637 F.3d 117 (2d Circ. 2011.)

Class action Accuses Cohen & Slamowitz of vouching for false Affidavits of Service

Cohen & Slamowitz is being accused of improperly vouching for affidavits of service it knew were highly likely to be false. Cohen was allegedly notified of the false affidavits because it was named in a prior lawsuit that revealed that a particular process-serving agency had a "company-wide policy" of falsifying thousands of affidavits of service. In denying its motion to dismiss, the court ruled that Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP could have violated the FDCPA by failing to investigate the fraudulent practices of its process service company while continuing to enforce those judgments. Coble v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 11 Civ 2011 (Class Action, Southern District, NY 2011.)

Cohen & Slamowitz' documents lacked attorney's meaningful review

This case spawned what consumer lawyers call the "Miller claim," which holds that attorney-signed letters and litigation documents without meaningful attorney review violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it implies to "the least sophisticated consumer" that an attorney was personally involved in the process of sending and/or creating the letter. If an attorney is not involved in either, the communication must disclaim that fact. Miller v. Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz, 01 Civ 1126 (Eastern District, New York.)


Cohen & Slamowitz is a high volume debt collection law firm that brings thousands of cases against consumers each year. It represents banks, lenders and third party buyers. It is a New York domestic limited liability partnership with its principal place of business in Woodbury, New York.