14.  That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-13 as if fully re-stated herein.   15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10)    15.  That by letter dated October 18, 2013 defendant wrote to plaintiff in an   attempt to collect a defaulted debt.   16.  That in the letter defendant stated that the original creditor of the debt is  Credit One Bank, NA.   17.  That in the letter defendant stated that the current creditor of the debt is  LVNV Funding, LLC.   18.  That in the letter defendant stated that the balance of the debt is $1,193.47.   19.  That in the heading of the letter, defendant stated, in pertinent part:  30.   That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-29 as if fully re-stated herein.                          31.  That by failing to inform plaintiff in its collection letter dated October 18,  2013 that the statute of limitations on the debt had expired, defendant failed to disclose  relevant information to plaintiff that would have necessarily influenced plaintiff’s decision as  to whether to pay the debt or any portion of it.                        32.  That by making the settlement offer to plaintiff, defendant encouraged  plaintiff to waive his defense to a lawsuit on the statute of limitations ground.                      33.  That by making the settlement offer to plaintiff without also disclosing  that the statute of limitations for the filing of a lawsuit for the debt had expired, defendant  attempted to deceive plaintiff into believing that there is a legally enforceable obligation to  pay the debt.                      34.   That defendant knew that if plaintiff paid any portion of the debt,  plaintiff would have waived the defense of the statute of limitations.                      35.   That defendant knew that if plaintiff paid any portion of the debt,  plaintiff would have made himself liable to be sued for the debt all over again.                        36.   That, moreover, in as much as defendant sent its letter to plaintiff’s  address in Staten Island, New York, defendant had a duty to include the information  regarding the statute of limitations required by the Administrative Code of the City of New  York and the Rules of the City of New York.                        37.   That, upon receipt of defendant’s letter, plaintiff did not know the   legal effect of paying the debt or any portion of it.  - 6 -                       38.   That, upon receipt of defendant’s letter, the least sophisticated  consumer would not know the legal effect of paying the debt or any portion of it.                       39.  That, upon receipt of defendant’s letter, the least sophisticated  consumer would believe that she had a legally enforceable obligation to pay the debt.                       40.  That defendant’s failure to state in its collection letter that the debt is  beyond the statute of limitations for the filing of a lawsuit is a false representation of the  legal status of the debt and is therefore in violation of the FDCPA, including but not  limited to, § 1692e(2)(A).                       41.  That defendant’s inclusion of the settlement offer in its collection letter  without stating that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations also constitutes a false  representation of the legal status of the debt and is also in violation of the FDCPA, including  but not limited to, § 1692e(2)(A).                       42.   That defendant’s inclusion of the settlement offer in its collection letter  without stating that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations constitutes a false, deceptive  and misleading means used by defendant in its attempt to collect the debt and is in violation  of the FDCPA, including but not limited to §§ 1692e and 1692e(10).  - 7 -  43.  That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 to 42 as if fully re-stated herein.   44.  That defendant owed a duty to plaintiff to effect its collection of plaintiff’s  alleged debt with reasonable care.   45.  That defendant’s offer of settlement in its collection letter without stating  that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations shows a lack of exercise of reasonable care in  defendant’s collection of the alleged debt.   46.  That defendant breached its duty to collect plaintiff’s alleged debt with  reasonable care.   47.  That defendant’s offer of settlement in its collection letter without stating  that the debt is beyond the statute of limitations constitutes a deceptive act and practice.    48.  That said deceptive act and practice was committed by defendant in the  conduct of a business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of a service in New York State and  constitutes a violation of NYGBL § 349.   49.  That defendant’s deceptive act and practice is consumer-oriented, in that   each of the letters in which defendant makes settlement offers while failing to disclose that the  statute of limitations for suing on the debt has expired is a form collection letter which defendant  sends to hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers in New York State each month.   50.  That defendant’s letters have a broad impact on consumers at large whose  accounts are placed with defendant for collection.  - 8 -   51.  That upon reading defendant’s collection letter, plaintiff did not know and  could not know that the statute of limitations for suing him to make him pay any portion of the  debt had already expired.    52.   That upon reading defendant’s collection letter, plaintiff did not know and  could not know that the legal effect of paying a portion of the debt would be to revive the statute  of limitations to be sued.   53.   That the information which defendant failed to disclose would necessarily  have influenced plaintiff and the least sophisticated consumer in deciding whether to pay the  debt or to accept defendant’s settlement offer.    54.   That, therefore, defendant’s statements in its letter to plaintiff are  deceptive and misleading in a material way.   55.  That plaintiff is a reasonable consumer within the meaning of the NYGBL  and acted reasonably under the circumstances of this case.   56.  That plaintiff suffered surprise, irritation, agitation, confusion,  emotional  distress, anxiety and a sense that defendant had sought to deceive him into paying or settling a  debt for which he could not be sued.   57.  That defendant violated NYGBL § 349(a) and is liable to plaintiff  pursuant to NYGBL § 349(h).  - 9 -  58.  That plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-57 as if fully re-stated herein.   59.  That this action is brought on behalf of plaintiff and the members of   a class. The class consists of all persons who defendant’s records reflect were sent debt  collection letters within the State of New York within the period of time commencing one year  before the filing of this complaint up to and including the date of the filing of the complaint and  who were sent a collection letter (a) in substantially the same form as the letter sent to plaintiff  dated October 18, 2013; (b) the collection letter was sent to a consumer seeking payment of a  consumer debt for which, as of the date of the collection letter, the current creditor was LVNV  Funding, LLC. and the original creditor was Credit One Bank, NA.; (c) the collection letter was  not returned by the postal service as undelivered; and (d) the letter contained the above violations  of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10).   The class shall be further defined as follows:   All natural persons with addresses in the State of New York to whom defendant sent  a collection letter which contained a settlement offer and which stated that the  current creditor was LVNV Funding, LLC. and the original creditor was Credit One  Bank, NA, where a lawsuit to collect the debt was beyond the applicable statute of  limitations and in which collection letter defendant failed to state that the statute of  limitations had expired, from one year before the filing of this complaint to the date of  filing inclusive.   60.  That the class does not include defendant or persons who are officers,  directors, or employees of defendant.  - 10 -   61.  That pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action   is appropriate and preferable in this case because:  (A)       Based on the fact that the collection letter that is the gravamen of               this litigation is a mass-mailed form letter, the class is so          numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon         information and belief, thousands of persons have received similar         debt collection letters from defendant which violate the various         provisions of the FDCPA.  (B)  There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these  questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class  members. The principal question presented by this claim is whether  defendant violated the FDCPA including but not limited to §§ 1692e,  1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) by failing to state in its collection letters  which make settlement offers on time-barred debts that the applicable  statute of limitations to be sued on the debts had expired.  NYGBL § 349   