11.  This Action is properly maintained as a class action. The Class is initially defined  as:  All New York consumers for whom Defendant communicated to any person  credit information, which is known to be false and/or for whom Defendant  failed to communicate to any person that a disputed debt was disputed as set  forth herein.  The class definition may be subsequently modified or refined.  The Class  period begins one year prior to the filing of this Action.   16.  Plaintiff is at all times to this lawsuit, a "consumer" as that term is defined by 15  U.S.C. § 1692a(3).   17.  Sometime prior to September 30, 2020, Plaintiff allegedly incurred one or more  financial obligations to NASSAU EMERGENCY MEDICINE, PC ("OBLIGATION” or  “OBLIGATIONS") for which Defendant reported information to one or more national credit  reporting agencies.   18.  The OBLIGATIONS arose out of a transaction, in which money, property,  insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family  or household purposes.   19.  Plaintiff incurred the OBLIGATIONS by obtaining goods and services which  were primarily for personal, family and household purposes.   20.  The OBLIGATIONS did not arise out of a transaction that was for non-personal  use.   21.  The OBLIGATIONS did not arise out of a transaction that was for business use.   22.  The OBLIGATIONS are a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).   24.  On or before September 30, 2020, the OBLIGATIONS were referred to  AMERIFINANCIAL for the purpose of collection.   25.  Plaintiff caused to be delivered to Defendant a letter dated September 30, 2020,  which was addressed to Defendant. See Exhibit A, which is fully incorporated herein by  reference.   26.  The September 30, 2020 letter was sent to Defendant in connection with the  collection of the OBLIGATIONS.   27.  The September 30, 2020 letter which was sent to the Defendant stated in part:  RE:  John M Lapata Sr.  Creditor: MEDICAL  Alleged Amount Due: $833.00  Please be advised that I dispute the above debt.   28.  After the date of the dispute, Defendant knew or should have known that the  credit information concerning the OBLIGATIONS would be communicated to creditors and  other persons.   29.  The credit information communicated to these creditors and other persons did not  indicate that the OBLIGATIONS were disputed.   30.  The credit information communicated to these creditors and other persons  concerning the OBLIGATIONS was false.   31.   Since September 30, 2020, Defendant has communicated to at least one person,  credit information which is known or should be known to be false.   32.  AMERIFINANCIAL knew or should have known that its actions violated the  36.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, repeats and realleges  all prior allegations as if set forth at length herein.   37.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e of the FDCPA by using any false,  deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with its attempts to collect debts  from Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   39.  By failing to communicate that the OBLIGATION was disputed to one or more of  the credit reporting bureaus, Defendant engaged in a false, deceptive or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of the debt.   40.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA by falsely  representing the character or legal status of the debt.   41.  By failing to communicate that a disputed debt was disputed, Defendant made a  false representation of the character or legal status of the debt.   42.  By communicating credit information which is known to be false or should be  known to be false, Defendant made a false representation of the character or legal status of the  debt.   43.  Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from communicating to  any person credit information which is known to be false or should be known to be false,  including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.   44.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by communicating to any  person credit information which is known to be false or should be known to be false.   45.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by failing to  communicate to any person that the OBLIGATION was disputed.   46.  Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by failing to  communicate to one or more of the credit reporting bureaus that the OBLIGATION was  disputed.   48.  By failing to communicate that the OBLIGATION was disputed as described  herein, Defendant engaged in a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to  collect the debt.   49.  Defendants’ conduct as described herein constitutes unfair or unconscionable  means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.   50.  Congress enacted the FDCPA in part to eliminate abusive debt collection  practices by debt collectors.   51.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have a right to free from abusive debt  collection practices by debt collectors.   52.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have a right to have the Defendant abide by  its obligations under the FDCPA and those specifically found at 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8).   53.  Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered harm as a direct result of the  abusive, deceptive and unfair collection practices described herein.    54.  Plaintiff has suffered damages and other harm as a direct result of the Defendants’  actions, conduct, omissions and violations of the FDCPA described herein.   FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. §   1692 et seq.  VIOLATIONS   