Complaint,Petition: Robert W. Puma v. William C. Grossman Law, Pllc, Grossman & Karaszewski, Pllc, William C. Grossman Esq., Sqauretwo Financial Services Corporation, Cach, Llc

On March 02, 2018 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Robert W. Puma, and Cach, Llc, Grossman & Karaszewski, Pllc, Sqauretwo Financial Services Corporation, William C. Grossman Esq., William C. Grossman Law, Pllc, for Torts - Other (Creditor Harassment) in the District Court of Erie County.

Preview
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

SUPREME COURT
COUN1Y OF ERIE : STATEOF NEWYORK

ROBERT W. PUMA COMPLAINT

Index No.:

Plaintiff,

vs.

WKLIAM C. GROSSMAN IAW, PLLC;
GROSSMAN & KARASZEWSKI, PU.C;
WKLIAM C. GROSSMAN, ESQ.;
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL SERVICES
CORPORATION and CACH, U_C;

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants'
1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C § 1692, et seq. (hereinafter

"FDCPA"), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair

practices.

2. A claim is also brought under New York General Business Law § 349(a), which prohibits

commerce."
deception "in the conduct of any business, trade, or

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Declaratory relief is available

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.

4. Venue is proper in that Plaintiff resides in Erie County, State of New York, and such

residence is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

1 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

5. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendants transact business here and the conduct

complained of occurred here.

6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in that Defendant, William C. Grossman Law, PIlJC has

its place of business in Erie County, State of New York, and such address is within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in that Defendant, Grossman & Karaszewski, PIlJC has

its place of business in Erie County, State of New York, and such address is within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in that Defendant, William C. Grossman, Esq. has his

place of business in Erie County, State of New York, and such address is within the jurisdiction

of this Court.

9. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendant, William C. Grossman Law, PIljC is registered

with the New York Secretary of State and does business in NewYork State.

10. Jurisdiction is proper because Defendant, Grossman & Karaszewski, PIlJC is registered

with the New York Secretary of State and does business in NewYork State.

11. Jurisdiction and Venue are proper because Defendant, CACH, IljC, is registered with the

NewYork Secretary of State and does business in NewYork State.

12. Venue is proper because Defendants committed a tort in Erie County, NewYork.

13. Venue is proper because State and Federal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil

actions brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1692.

14. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in that this Court is a court of general jurisdiction.

15. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in that the Defendants have offices and places of

business in NewYork State.

2 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

16. Based on the above, jurisdiction is proper because State and Federal Courts have

concurrent jurisdiction over private civilactions under the FDCPA.

PARTIES

"Plaintiff" "Puma"
17. Plaintiff, Robert W. Puma (hereinafter referred to as or "Puma"), is a natural

person residing in Erie County, State ofNewYork.

"Defendant"
18. Defendant, William C. Grossman Law, PUJC (hereinafter referred to as or

"WCGLaw"), with an address at 5965 Transit Road, Suite 500, East Amherst, NY 14051, is a law

firm that practices in consumer debt collection.

"Defendant"
19. Defendant, Grossman & Karaszewski, PUJC (hereinafter referred to as or

"G&K"), with an address at 5965 Transit Road, Suite 500, East Amherst, NY 14051, is a law firm

that practices in consumer debt collection.

"Defendant"
20. Defendant, William C. Grossman, Esq. (hereinafter referred to as or

"Grossman"), with a business address at 5965 Transit Road, Suite 500, East Amherst, NY 14051,

is an attorney who practices in consumer debt collection.

"Defendant"
21. Defendant, CACH, UJC (hereinafter referred to as or "CACH"), with an

address at 4340 S. Monaco, Second Floor, Denver, CO 80237, is a corporation which engages in

the collection of consumer debts.

22. Defendant, SquareTwo Financial Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as

"Defendant"
or "SquareTwo"), with an address at 4340 S. Monaco, Second Floor, Denver, CO

80237, is a corporation which engages in the collection of consumer debts.

23. CACH,UJCis an undercapitalized shell corporation owned by SquareTwo.

24. Defendant, Grossman & Karaszewski, PUJCis the successor PUJC to William C. Grossman

Law, PUJC.

3 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

25. Defendants are engaged in the collection of debts from consumers using the mail and

telephone.

26. WCG Law regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be due another.

collector"
Defendant is a "debt as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

27. G&K regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be due another.

collector"
Defendant is a "debt as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

28. Grossman regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be due another.

collector"
Defendant is a "debt as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

29. CACH regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be due another.

collector"
Defendant is a "debt as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

30. SquareTwo is a buyer of delinquent consumer debt and regularly attempts to collect

collector"
consumer debts alleged to be due another. Defendant is a "debt as defined by the

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

"Defendants" "Defendant"
31. All references to or herein shall mean the Defendant or an

employee(s) or agent(s) attorney(s) or principal(s) of the Defendant.

BACKGROUND

32. Within the last year, Defendants have been engaging in the collection of a consumer

debt.

33. Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family

"debt"
or household purposes and is therefore a as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(5).

34. The account was a consumer debt as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692.

35. Specifically, Defendants sued Puma in Tonawanda City Court in 2016.

4 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

36. WCGLaw and Grossman represented CACHin the above-mentioned City Court matter.

37. CACH obtained a default judgment against PUMA due to questionable service by WCG

Law's process server.

38. In the fallof 2017, Puma hired an attorney to represent him.

39. Specifically, the default judgment was vacated and the city court matter was dismissed.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

40. On November 2, 2017, Puma's counsel filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment

and the motion was served on Defendants.

41. On November 13, 2017 WCGLaw and Grossman served a response to Puma's motion.

42. Court dates with WCG Law appearing in Tonawanda City Court were held on November

15, 2017 and November 29, 2017.

43. Furthermore, there were emails between Puma's counsel and WCGLaw and Grossman.

44. Based on the above, it is undisputed that Defendants had undeniable and

unquestionable knowledge of Puma's attorney representation.

45. At a traverse hearing on December 20, 2017, the default judgment was vacated and the

city court debt collection was dismissed due to the debt being time barred.

46. However, on or about January 23, 2018 Defendants sent a letter directly to Puma

confirming a payment arrangement.

47. Said letter was not sent to Puma's attorney.

48. Puma never made a payment to Defendants nor did Puma agree to make an agreed

debt payment schedule.

49. The January 23, 2018 correspondence, which was mailed directly to Plaintiff's home by

WCG Law and Grossman, was addressed to Plaintiff as pro-se defendant. Said action by

5 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

Defendants was done in an attempt to coerce and frighten Mr. Puma into paying a purported

debt which was dismissed by a court.

50. Once Mr. Puma received the January 23, 2018 correspondence from Defendants, he

became nervous, upset and concerned due to wondering if he was protected by his hired

attorney.

51. As a least sophisticated consumer, Puma worried about whether attorney

representation would be enough to protect him.

52. Mr. Puma also questioned ifhe would experience adverse consequences ifhe were not

to respond to the above mentioned correspondence.

53. Furthermore, on February 9, 2018, Defendants forwarded another correspondence

directly to Mr. Puma.

54. Said letter referenced a non-existent payment agreement stating a balance of

$15,530.25.

55. In other words, Defendants were fraudulently asserting that Puma entered in a

arranged agreement with them - which he did not since the case was dismissed.
previously

56. Additionally, on the same day of February 9, 2018, Defendants forwarded yet additional

but separate correspondence directly to Mr. Puma.

57. This separate correspondence referenced a non-existent payment agreement stating a

balance of $15,508.62.

58. Again, Defendants were fraudulently asserting that Puma entered in a previously

arranged agreement with them - which he did not since the case was dismissed.

6 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

59. In Defendants sent three separate letters - one dated and
sum, (3) (1) January 23, 2018,

the other two dated 2018 - to Plaintiff on three different
(2) February 9, (3) occasions, stating

three (3) different balances.

60. Each of these letters fraudulently asserted that Plaintiff willfully entered into mutually

agreed upon payment arrangements with them - that Plaintiff was
essentially asserting willing

to pay on purported debt that was already dismissed.

61. Likewise, Defendants violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amount of a consumer

debt by stating two different amounts in two separate letters dated the same day of February

9, 2018.

62. Plaintiff Puma suffered emotional distress and confusion wondering about what

consequences he would endure due to receipt of these falsified payment arrangements.

63. Defendants violated 1692c(a)(2) by directly contacting Plaintiff even though Defendants

had full awareness that Plaintiff was being represented by an attorney. Specifically, Defendants

violated the FDCPA by sending numerous written communications to the Plaintiff when the

Defendants were fully aware that Puma was represented by counsel.

64. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. section 1692c(a)(2) prohibits consumer contacts by a debt

collector who knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to a consumer

debt.

65. Once a debt collector learns that the consumer is represented by an attorney, the

collector must deal exclusively with the consumer's attorney and is legally forbidden from

contacting the consumer even to confirm said attorney's retention.

7 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

66. More importantly, Defendants violated the FDCPA by sending letters to Puma

attempting to collect on a non-enforceable debt and nonexistent judgment. As such,

Defendants misrepresented the legal status of an alleged consumer debt.

status"
67. A debt collector misrepresents the 'legal of a debt by attempting to collect

money on a nonexistent judgment.

68. Defendant violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the legal status of a consumer debt.

See, Gasser v. Allen County Claims & Adjustment, Inc. 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20361 (N.D. Ohio

Nov. 2 1983) (letter threatening garnishment violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) since it created

false impression that judgment had been obtained, despite use of the word "may"; use of an

ineffective confession of judgment note violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), (2)(A)). See, Picht v.

Hawks, 236 F.3d 446
(8th
& 2001) (finding defendants violated MA because they had no

authority under Minnesota law to obtain the default judgment since there were more than

contractual damages sought; collection agents filed a collection lawsuit against the consumers

on a dishonored check for the check amount and a statutory penalty, obtained a default

judgment, and attached the consumer's bank account); Taylor v. Heath W. Williams, LLC, 510 F.

Supp. 2d 1206 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (allegation that defendant filed a garnishment claim when the

amount had been paid stated a cause of action under § 1692e(2), (10)).

69. Defendant is liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 because said FDCPA provision applies to

actions brought by debt buyers, collection attorneys and collection agencies who wish to bring

a court action on behalf of a creditor.

70. Based on the Defendants misrepresenting to Mr. Puma that there was a judgment

against him and attempting to collect on a non-existent judgment and by contacting him even

8 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

though he was represented by an attorney, Plaintiff suffered a great deal of emotional distress,

nausea, stress, anxiety and loss of sleep.

71. Furthermore, Defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to enforce a judgment on

an underlying debt past the statute oflimitations.

72. Defendants continued to collect on the time barred debt within the last year by

engaging in such acts as garnishing Mr. Puma's wages.

73. Plaintiff's cause of action includes the continuing acts and omissions of Defendants in

connection with the invalid CACH affidavits and by enforcing the default judgment against

Puma.

74. Defendants violated the FDCPAwithin the last year by affirmatively misrepresenting the

CACH affidavits as true and proper; concealing their knowledge of the falseness of the

affidavits; and continuing to collect on the underlying default judgment. To collect on said

judgment, they forcefully sent an Income Execution to the Erie County Sheriff's Office Civil

Enforcement Division within the last year and sent a wage execution to Plaintiff's employer in

2017.

75. Based on being contacted by Defendants demanding payment for a debt which Plaintiff

did not owe, Plaintiff suffered a great deal of emotional distress, nausea, stress, anxiety and

loss of sleep.

76. Based on the actions by WCGLaw and Grossman, CACH and SquareTwo are vicariously

attorneys'/agents'
liable for their FDCPAviolations and conduct.

77. Therefore, CACH and SquareTwo are vicariously liable for WCG Law and Grossman's

actions.

9 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1692

78. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs One (1) through

Seventy-Seven (77) above.

Defendants'
79. Defendants violated the FDCPA. Defendants violations include, but are not limited to

the following:

80. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAG violated 15 U.S.C §

1692c(a)(2) by directly contacting Plaintiff even though Plaintiff was represented by an

attorney.

81. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAG violated 15 U.S.C §

1692g(a) by not sending Plaintiff the required Verification Rights Notice.

82. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAG violated 15 U.S.C. §§

1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692(f)(1) by filinga time-barred suit and continuing to collect

on a time-barred debt.

83. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAŒ violated 15 U.S.C. §

1692f(1) by attempting to collect amounts not permitted by law.

84. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAŒ violated 15 U.S.C. §

1692e(5) by misrepresenting the legal status of a consumer debt.

85. Defendants, WCGLaw, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAŒ violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692

by using false representations and deceptive means to collect a debt.

86. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAŒ violated 15 U.S.C §

1692g(b) by not ceasing collection efforts until the debt was verified.

87. Defendants, WCG Law, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CAŒ violated 15 U.S.C. §

1692e(2)(a) by misrepresenting the legal status of an alleged debt.

10 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

88. Defendants, WCGLaw, Grossman, G&K, SquareTwo and CACHviolated 15 U.S.C § 1692e

Defendants'
by deterring Plaintiff from seeking a defense to collection actions.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349

89. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs One (1) through

Eighty-Eight (88) above.

90. New York GBL § 349 proscribes "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

state."
business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this

91. GBL provides that "any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of [their

respective] section[s] may bring an action in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or

practice"
as well as to obtain actual damages, or fifty dollars, whichever is greater.

92. As set forth hereinbefore, Defendants have engaged in deceptive acts and practices

within the meaning of New York GBL § 349: namely, engaging in a practice of contacting

consumers and falsely attempting to convince New York consumers that they are responsible

for debts for which they are not legally responsible and claiming that consumers agreed to a

settlements when they did not agree to any such settlement.

93. Defendants have also engaged in deceptive acts and practices within the meaning of

New York GBL § 349: namely, engaging in a practice of contacting consumers that are

represented by attorneys.

Defendants'
94. By virtue of the harmful results of its activities, Defendants actions, as set forth

hereinbefore, have caused both consumer injury and harm to the public interest.

Defendants'
95. As set forth hereinbefore, as a result of Defendants violation of GBL section 349,

Plaintiff was economically harmed to his detriment, and is entitled either to actual damages in

an amount to be shown according to proof, or alternatively and together with Defendants, to

damages in amount of $50.00 pursuant to GBL section 349(h), whichever is greater.

11 of 12
FILED: ERIE COUNTY CLERK 03/02/2018 02:42 PM INDEX NO. 803356/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/02/2018

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert W. Puma, respectfully requests that judgment be entered
against Defendants, William C. Grossman Law, PLI_C; Grossman & Karaszewski, PU.C; William C.

Grossman, Esq.; SquareTwo Financial Services Corporation and CACH, UC for the following:

Defendants'
A. Declaratory judgment that conduct violated the FDCPA;

B. Actual damages;

C. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

D. Cost and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

E. Damages pursuant to NYGBL § 349;

F. Attorney fees pursuant to NY GBL § 349;

G. Punitive damages to be determined by the Court.

H. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 2, 2018

Buffalo, New York

/s/: Jason A. Shear
Law Offices of Jason A. Shear
Jason A. Shear, Esq.
E-mail: jshear@jasonshearlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
561 Ridge Road

Lackawanna, NewYork 14218
Phone: (716) 566-8988
Fax: (716) 822-0009

12 of 12

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 02, 2018

Case Filing Date

March 02, 2018

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.