17.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all persons  similarly situated in the State of New York.    18.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:   All consumer to who Defendant CCS sent a collection letter substantially  and materially similar to the Letter sent to Plaintiff, which letter was sent  on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action to the present.    19.  This action seeks a finding that Defendant CCS’s conduct violates the FDCPA, and  asks that the Court award damages as authorized by 15 U.S.C. §1692k.   5   20.  The Class consist of more than thirty-five persons.    21.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Common questions of law  or fact raised by this action affect all members of the Class and predominate over any individual  issues. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class. A class action  is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.    22.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of  the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class  would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class  not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests. Defendant has acted in a demeanor applicable to the Class as a whole such that  declaratory relief is warranted.    23.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class.  The management of the class is not extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues  raised by this action will not require extended contact with the members of the Class, because  Defendant’s conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by  common proof. Moreover, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in actions brough under  consumer protection laws.   24.  Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs  numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length  herein.  6   25.  Some time prior to April 29, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to  Synchrony Bank/Care Credit (“Synchrony Bank”) by the Plaintiff.   26.  The Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,  property, insurance or services which were the subject of the transactions were primarily for  personal, family or household purposes.   27.  The alleged Synchrony Bank obligation is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C.  §1692a(5).   28.  Synchrony Bank is a original “creditor” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4).    29.  Sometime thereafter, Defendant CCS purportedly purchased the alleged Synchrony  Bank debt and is attempting to collect the alleged debt.   30.  Defendant CCS collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have  been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the  United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.   31.  Upon information and belief, CCS did not purchase the alleged debt from  Synchrony Bank.    32.  Accordingly, by attempting to collect the alleged debt, CCS misrepresented its  ability to collect the debt in violation of the FDCPA   33.  In the alternative, and upon information and belief, if CCS purchased Plaintiff’s  alleged debt from Synchrony Bank, the sale of this alleged debt is subject to the relevant  provisions that Synchrony Bank imposes on its debt purchasers.    34.  Synchrony Bank contracts of sale (a/k/a Forward Flow Agreements) for defaulted  debt provide specific limitation on the ability of its debt purchasers to make any collection  7  attempts while alleged debtors are in disaster areas as determined by FEMA or any other  appropriate government entity.   35.  Accordingly, and upon information and belief that CCS did purchase Plaintiff’s  alleged debt from Synchrony Bank, the Forward Flow Agreements evidencing proof of sale,  prohibit CCS from seeking to collect against Plaintiff’s alleged debt, while Plaintiff resides in  a disaster area.   36.  On March 7, 2020, Governor Cuomo declared a State of Emergency across the  entire State of New York due to the Coid-19 pandemic.   37.  On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump declared a nationwide emergency,  including for the State of New York, as recognized by the Federal Register.   38.  Despite the fact that Plaintiff clearly resided in a disaster area in April 2020, CCS  pursued collection activities by sending collection letters to Plaintiff.   39.  Given the express conditions of sale, CCS misrepresented its ability to collect  Plaintiff’s debt by sending collection letters in April 2020. Accordingly, CCS has violated the  42. Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   43. Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff  violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.  8   44. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or  misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.   45. Defendant violated said section, as described above, by making a false or misleading  representation in violation of Section 1692e, e(2), e(5), and e(10).   46. By reason thereof, defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692e, et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to actual  damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  47. Plaintiff repeats the above allegations as if set forth here.   48. Alternatively, Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards  the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to, 15 U.S.C.  § 1692f.   49. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, a debt collector may not use any unfair or  unconscionable means in connection with the collection of any debt.   50. Defendant violated this section by unfairly misrepresenting Plaintiff’s rights and  misleading Plaintiff as to the proper course of action.   51. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendant’s  conduct violated Section 1692f, et seq. of the FDCPA and Plaintiff is entitled to actual  damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.  VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692f et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT   15 U.S.C. §1692e et seq.  