Hardly a day goes by at Schlanger & Schlanger that we don’t hear from someone who was not properly served with papers at the time they were sued. Sadly, submission of false documents related to service in consumer debt cases is an endemic feature of the debt collection industry.
The case of Elizabeth Coble, et al. v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, et al., 11-cv-1037, recently filed by Schlanger & Schlanger and co-counsel Roddy, Klein & Ryan in the Southern District of New York details how false affidavits were submitted in thousands of collection cases and how one law firm, Cohen & Slamowitz, has continued its collection actions on these cases even to this day, despite its knowledge of the problem. In 2005, Elizabeth Coble was sued by Cohen & Slamowitz in New York Civil Court over a Discover Card debt. She was never served papers, however, and Cohen & Slamowitz entered a default judgment against her. She didn’t even become aware of the lawsuit until almost four years later when she was contacted by a Florida debt collector who was trying to collect based on a fictitious judgment in Florida. At this point, Ms. Coble went to court in New York to fight the judgment, and subsequently retained Schlanger & Schlanger to help in her fight.
After reviewing her documents, it became clear to us that something was not right, and not just in Ms. Coble’s case. Back in 2006, a process server who worked for Midlantic Process admitted under oath that his former employer, a process server named Midlantic Process, that worked extensively for Cohen & Slamowitz, systematically filed thousands of false affidavits with New York courts. If you’ve read or heard anything about robo-signing in foreclosures, it’s a very similar scenario.
The Midlantic Process server, Kenneth Vega, admitted under oath that the activities of his company were entirely directed by the owners of Midlantic Process, Robert and Vivian Schusteritsch and that they engaged in this misconduct in order to keep Cohen & Slamowitz as a customer. What’s more, Cohen & Slamowitz was aware of Mr. Vega’s affidavit, having been involved in the case in which it came out, and did nothing about it. They neither notified the impacted consumers, nor the Courts, that the Midlantic affidavits of service were false, nor that the law firm’s previous sworn statements regarding the affidavits were in need of revision. To the contrary, when confronted with a consumer who claimed she hadn’t been served, Cohen & Slamowitz pointed to the Midlantic affidavits as definitive proof that service had been made.
Schlanger & Schlanger, along with co-counsel Roddy, Klein & Ryan brought a class action lawsuit against Cohen & Slamowitz and several of its attorneys for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case is now pending.
If you were sued by Cohen & Slamowitz in a consumer collection action in New York State, and your affidavit of service was signed and/or notarized by someone from Midlantic Process, please fill out our online questionairre, as you may be part of this class of plaintiffs victimized by Cohen & Slamowitz. Check in here for updates as the case progresses.
