                  53.  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-52 as if fully re-stated herein.                    54.  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 defendant sent to plaintiff;  (b) the collection letter was sent to a consumer  seeking  payment  of  a  consumer  debt;  (c)  the   collection  letter  was  not returned by the postal service as undelivered; and (d) the letter  contained violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4). The class does not include defendant or persons  who are officers, directors, employees or representatives of defendant.                     55.  The class shall be defined as follows:  All natural persons with addresses within the State of New York to whom defendant sent a  collection letter concerning a consumer debt, which collection letter states, in sum or  substance:               “If you notify this office verbally or in writing within 30 days from receiving this              notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office              will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a              copy of such judgment or verification.”  from one year before the filing of this complaint to the date of the filing of this complaint  inclusive, and which letter was not returned by the postal service as undeliverable.                     56.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), 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, § 1692g(a)(4), by sending letters to consumers which stated that the  consumers may dispute their debts either verbally or in writing.  (C)  The only individual issue is the identification of the consumers who received  the letters (the class members), a matter capable of ministerial determination  from the records of defendant.  (D)  The claims of plaintiff are typical of those of the class members. All are based  on the same facts and legal theories.  (E)  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members’ interests.  Plaintiff has retained experienced counsel. Plaintiff’s interests are consistent  with those of the members of the class.                     57.  A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of the class   members’  claims.  Congress specifically  envisions  class  actions  as  a principal means of  enforcing the FDCPA in 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The members of the class are generally  unsophisticated individuals, whose rights will not be vindicated in the absence of a class action.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create the risk of  inconsistent or varying adjudications resulting in the establishment of inconsistent or varying  standards for the parties and would not be in the interest of judicial economy.                      58.  If the facts are discovered to be appropriate, plaintiff will seek to certify  a   class  action  pursuant  to  Rule  23(b)(3)  of  the  Federal  Rules  of  Civil Procedure.                      59.  Communications from debt collectors, such as those sent by defendant, are  to be evaluated by the objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer”.                      60.  As a result of the above violations, defendant is liable to plaintiff and the  members of the class for an injunction and damages in an amount to be determined at the time of  trial, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.   WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment  be  entered against  defendant as follows:  (a)  certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure;  (b)  awarding maximum statutory damages to the class pursuant to 15  U.S.C. § 1692k in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;  (c)  awarding maximum statutory damages to plaintiff pursuant to 15  U.S.C. § 1692k in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;  (d)  awarding actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k in an amount  to be determined at the time of trial;  (e)  awarding reasonable  attorneys’  fees,  costs  and  disbursements pursuant to  15 U.S.C. § 1692k;  (f)  enjoining defendant  from  committing  further  deceptive  acts  and practices  with respect to plaintiff pursuant to NYGBL § 349;  (g)  awarding statutory damages pursuant to NYGBL § 349 in an amount to be  determined at the time of trial;  (h)  in the alternative, awarding actual damages pursuant to NYGBL § 349 in  an amount to be determined at the time of trial;  (i)  awarding  reasonable  attorneys’  fees,  costs  and  disbursements pursuant  to NYGBL § 349; and  (j)  for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.                       14.  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-13 as if fully re-stated herein.                       15.  Defendant sent plaintiff a collection letter dated May 30, 2017.                       16.  In the letter, defendant alleged that plaintiff owed a Merrick Bank debt.                       17.  The debt was alleged to be in default.                       18.  Defendant sent the letter to plaintiff in an attempt to collect the allegedly  defaulted Merrick Bank debt.                       19.  The letter was defendant’s first communication with plaintiff in connection  with the collection of the debt.                       20.  The letter was defendant’s first written communication with plaintiff in  connection with the collection of the debt.                      21.  Defendant sent no letter to plaintiff within five days after the date on which  defendant sent the letter dated May 30, 2017.                         22.  In the letter, defendant stated, in relevant part:                     FDCPA § 1692g(a)(4)                     26.  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1-25 as if fully re-stated herein.                     27.  In its collection letter defendant stated, in relevant part:  NYGBL § 349                     39.  Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 to 38 as if  fully re-stated  herein.                   40.  Each of the deceptive acts and practices above-mentioned was committed by  defendant in the conduct of a business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of a service in the  State of New York and constitutes a violation of NYGBL § 349.                   41.  Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices were consumer-oriented, in that  defendant is a collector of consumer debts incurred principally or wholly by natural persons.                  42.  Defendant contacts hundreds of consumers within the State of New York  each year by mail in an attempt to collect Merrick Bank debts.                    43.  Defendant’s letter to plaintiff is typical of the letters defendant mails to  consumers within the State of New York in attempts to collect Merrick Bank debts.                  44.  Defendant’s letter to plaintiff is derived from a letter form.                  45.  Defendant’s letter to plaintiff is derived from a letter template.                    46.  Defendant has a pattern of mailing collection letters to hundreds of  consumers within the State of New York each year which inaccurately notifies such consumers of  their rights under federal law.                   47.  Defendant’s aforesaid inaccurate notification of the consumer’s rights is  consumer-oriented, in that the notification was not restricted to the collection letter which defendant  mailed to plaintiff, but extended to, at a minimum, initial collection letters which defendant mailed to  all consumers within the State of New York at all times relevant herein.                   48.  Defendant’s said inaccurate notification of the consumer’s rights has a broad  impact on consumers at large whose accounts are placed with defendant for collection, because at all  times relevant herein defendant mailed substantially the same initial letter to all consumers in the State  of New York, all of which contained the inaccurate notification of the consumer’s legal rights.                   49.  Defendant’s inaccurate notification was deceptive in a material way in that   New York State consumers receiving defendant’s letters would believe, erroneously, that a timely  verbal dispute of their debts would be sufficient to preserve their legal rights and to place certain legal  duties on defendant.                 50.  Plaintiff is a reasonable consumer within the meaning of the NYGBL.                 51.  Upon learning that federal law required him to dispute the debt in writing only  in order to obtain verification of the debt and a cessation of debt collection until the verification is  provided, and that a verbal request was not sufficient under the law to obtain such verification or  cessation, plaintiff felt annoyed, confused and surprised that defendant would fail to provide him  with accurate information concerning his rights under federal law.                  52.  Defendant violated NYGBL § 349(a) and is liable to plaintiff under  NYGBL § 349(h). 