New York Civil Court Judge Arthur Engoran recently denied a motion to confirm arbitration filed by (now defunct) collection firm Mann Bracken on behalf of credit card giant FIA Card Services, and dismissed the case against consumer Miguel Escobar, who was represented by Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP. The Court found the arbitration award issued by National Arbitration Forum to be unenforceable as a matter of “public policy”, pointing to unrebutted evidence of NAF’s “institutional bias”. This decision is of particular note for its refusal to enforce an NAF award issued prior to the effective date of the consent decree entered into by NAF and the Minnesota Attorney General pursuant to which NAF stopped hearing consumer cases filed on or after July 24, 2009.
Questions?
New York Civil Court denies motion to confirm arbitration filed by FIA Card Services, dismisses case against consumer represented by Schlanger & Schlanger.
Old Debts That Won’t Die
Daniel Schlanger featured in New York Times – “Old Debts That Won’t Die.”
To read the entire article, click here.
Citibank Denied Right To Collect 29.9% Interest On Defaulted Credit Card Account: Judge Rules That New York’s Usury Laws Apply Absent Evidence That “Non-Ministerial” Tasks Were Performed In Citibank’s Home State Of South Dakota.
It is common knowledge that national bank’s are exempt from New York’s usury statute. Or are they?
In a recent, detailed and well reasoned decision, in Citibank (South Dakota) v. Hansen, Judge Ciaffa of the Nassau County District Court surveyed the relevant federal statute (12 U.S.C. § 85), case law, agency opinions, and legislative history, and cast doubt on Citibank’s entitlement to collect interest of 29.9%, well above New York’s maximum rate of 16%. The Court held that Citibank was entitled to exemption from New York’s usury limit and instead to rely on the less lenient usury laws of its “home state”, “only if at least one significant non-ministerial function associated with the account actually took place in the bank’s ‘home state’”, as opposed to New York. Read the rest of this entry »
Judge Tosses Midland Funding’s Lawsuit Against New York Consumer Based On Midland’s Failure To Register With The New York Department of State
An under-reported decision issued earlier this spring, Midland Funding, LLC v. Mance, 21642/06 (Westchester Supreme), April may provide a basis for the dismissal of thousands of cases filed by one of the country’s larger debt buyers. A Westchester County Supreme Court judge vacated a judgment obtained by Midland Funding against a consumer based on Midland’s failure to register with the New York Department of State. Read the rest of this entry »
New York Court of Appeals Holds That Debt Buyer’s Claim Is Time-Barred Under New York’s “Borrowing Statute”: Debtor Entitled To Rely Upon Delaware’s Three Year Statute of Limitations.
On April 29, 2010, New York’s highest court issued its decision in Portfolio Recover Associates, LLC v. King. The Court’s decision, which potentially impacts thousands of debt collection lawsuits involving old credit card debt, New York’s Court of Appeals held that a consumer was entitled to the shorter of New York’s statute of limitations (six years for breach of contract) and Delaware’s statute of limitations (three years for breach of contract). Read the rest of this entry »
Published by Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. of Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP
A law firm with offices in White Plains and Manhattan which practices extensively in the area of consumer law.
