"The law firm of Schlanger & Schlanger has been nothing short of superb, timely, friendly, as well as professional. My consumer protection case was handled most appropriately. In regards to Peter Lane and Daniel Schlanger, I would like to commend both as most effective attorneys and negotiators. Too often the efforts of great attorneys go without praise, but not today. Thank you for standing ‘our’ ground until a favorable settlement agreement was achieved. You guys rock, as my third grade class would say. Continue to be the blessing you are."
Westchester County, NY
Have You Been Sued By Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP?
Our Law Firm Can Help
If you are experiencing issues with the debt collection law firm, Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, then you should get in touch with a New York debt defense attorney at Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP. The following are some examples of situations in which our lawyers were able to protect our clients from cases involving Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP.
Schlanger & Schlanger LLP Consumer Cases Against Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
- In Robert v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP (12-cv-2551, E.D.N.Y), Schlanger and Schlanger, LLP, representing a U.S. Army veteran, alleged that Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it secured a default judgment in a state court collection action against a consumer who alleged that he was in active military service, and stationed out of state at the time. Defendant disputed the allegations and the case was settled on confidential terms.
- In a recent case prosecuted by Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP and Boston-based co-counsel, Roddy, Kavanagh & Costello, Plaintiff successfully invoked the doctrine of equitable tolling to ward off Cohen & Slamowitz's motion to dismiss class action claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Coble v. Cohen & Slamowitz, 824 F. Supp.2d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)) Specifically, the consumers alleged that the company knew about widespread and illegal service of process violations in connection with thousands of its lawsuits. These illegal acts included the process server's falsification of process affidavits, its failure to make service attempts prior to using New York's "nail and mail" method as well as forgery and false notification of process server's signature. Based on these allegations, the Court denied Cohen & Slamowitz's motion to dismiss and invoked the doctrine of equitable tolling on the ground that the debt collection law firm's inequitable conduct, if proven, would be deemed to have concealed Plaintiff's cause of action.
Schlanger and Schlanger, LLP recently brought lawsuit against Cohen & Slamowitz under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for debt collection abuse. Specifically, we sued Cohen & Slamowitz for harassing a consumer regarding a debt she had already settled in full. Cohen and Slamowtiz unsuccessfully attempted to have our case dismissed. Federal Judge Colleen McMahon denied the motion, described Cohen & Slamowitz's arguments as "idiotic" and sanctioned Cohen & Slamowitz for the "utter frivolousness" of its motion.
Click here to read the Court's opinion. Shortly afterwards, the case settled for $10,000 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of $68,282.
Click here to read the Court's decision on fees.
- Schlanger & Schlanger has gotten several Cohen & Slamowitz credit card cases dismissed for blatant failure to properly serve consumers with a Summons and Complaint. For example, in Midland Funding v. Shepherd, Cohen & Slamowitz sued our client to collect an old credit card debt. Cohen & Slamowitz's process server claimed to have served our client's husband, who had passed away several years earlier. The Court threw out the case and awarded our client costs in response to this debt collection abuse.
- In another credit card case, Cohen & Slamowitz sued one of Schlanger & Schlanger's clients on an old Discover card account and served him at an address where he hadn't lived since high school. Again, the Court threw out the case.
Other Consumer Litigation Involving Cohen & Slamowitz
Cohen & Slamowitz has been sued repeatedly by New York consumers for its unfair and deceptive debt collection practices. For example:
- In another recent federal court case, a consumer-debtor sued Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act . See Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F.Supp. 2d. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Specifically, plaintiff accused Cohen & Slamowitz of deceptive and misleading debt collection practices, including use of improper validation notices, failing to inform of the potential tax consequences of a tendered discount and falsely threatening to sue plaintiff. Based on these allegations, the Court refused to grant Cohen & Slamowitz's motion to dismiss the complaint against it.
- In another federal court in New York, consumer-debtor accused Cohen & Slamowitz of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hennenberger v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31250 (W.D.N. Y. Mar. 31, 2010) The abusive and deceptive alleged against Cohen & Slamowitz included allegations that it made harassing and abusive telephone calls in attempting to collect a debt and that it unlawfully and deceptively threatened to seize Plaintiff's Social Security and pension income in order to satisfy a debt. Based on these allegations, the Court denied Cohen & Slamowitz's motion for summary judgment in respect of these claims.
- The Attorney General and the Administrator for the New York State Courts accused Cohen & Slamowitz, among several large debt collection firms, of using process servers who intentionally failed to properly serve New York consumers with a Summons and Complaint. See Pfau v. Forster & Garbus, et al. In many of these cases, the process server claimed to be at several locations at once. This practice, known as "sewer service" is a classic unfair debt collection practice that denies a debtor his or her day in court. The Attorney General settled its claims against Cohen & Slamowitz in late 2010.
A recent investigative report by MFY Legal Services, Inc. found that Cohen & Slamowitz filed 41,480 cases in 2007, in just New York City alone. "Justice Disserved," June 2008. The consumer responded in only 6.84 percent of those cases. Thus, the vast majority of those cases resulted in default judgments against the consumer.
In Suquilanda v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102727 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 7, 2011), a consumer alleged that Cohen & Slamowitz violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by failing to meaningfully review a consumer's account prior to sending a settlement offer using the law firm's letterhead on behalf of its client, one of the
Midland/Encore collection entities. The consumer also alleged that the Cohen & Slamowitz violated the FDCPA by misstating the creditor's name in a collection letter and providing conflicting statements regarding the consumer's balance. The Court held that these allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
See How We Can Help
Debtors have rights. If you are suffering debt collection abuse and harassment at the hands of Cohen & Slamowitz or feel that Cohen & Slamowitz is violating your rights, contact the consumer lawyers at Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP by filling out our consumer questionnaire.
About Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP is a high volume debt collection law firm that was formed in the early 1990s. Its main office is located at 199 Crossways Park Dr., Woodbury, NY 11797-02016. The firm is managed by its two active partners, David A. Cohen and Mitchell G. Slamowitz. According to their website, the firm is heavily focused on making sure that they employ a diverse group of people at their firm. Cohen & Slamowitz has previously been the center of media attention across New York, because of the heavy volume of cases that come in from their firm. To review an article about the firm,
visit the New York Times website.