Preview:

[*1]


Decided on May 26, 2011
Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County

6052/10
Plaintiff Zwicker & Associates P.C. 150 Allens Creek Road 1st Floor Rochester, NY 14618 Defendant Self-represented
Philip S. Straniere, J.

Plaintiff, Discover Bank, commenced this action against the defendant, Ronald Washington, alleging that the defendant owed money on a credit card obligation. Previously, the plaintiff had filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied owing to deficiencies in the documentation attached in support. The defendant had raised as a defense that he had thought he had purchased insurance from the plaintiff which would be activated in the event he could not make monthly payments owing to a pre-existing medical problem. Although the court denied the motion for summary judgment, it did schedule a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant had an insurance plan issued by and purchased from the plaintiff which would make payments for him or whether he had contracted for some other credit card protection coverage. The hearing was scheduled on May 2, 2011. Plaintiff appeared by its local per diem counsel and the defendant appeared without counsel. Defendant has not had counsel throughout this litigation.
Although scheduled for a "hearing" on May 2, 2011 by the court's decision dated April 4, 2011, plaintiff did not produce any person to testify as to details of the credit protection plan purchased by the defendant. It did not even submit an affidavit from someone with "personal [*2]knowledge" of the defendant's account or of the protection plan. It did not produce an attorney's affirmation on any of the issues. Instead, plaintiff produced a letter on "Zwicker & Associates" letterhead signed "Respectfully yours, Steven P. Baum, Esq." Attached to the letter was a copy of the court's April 4, 2011 decision and a document purporting to be the "Discover Payment Protection Terms and Conditions" plan purchased by the defendant. The document is copyrighted 2005. Additionally, the court is in receipt of a letter from Discover Financial Services dated May 10, 2010 and addressed to the defendant denying activation of the plan's coverage. This letter presumably does not bear the signature of any individual but is signed "Sincerely, Payment Protection Customer Care Team." (The court uses the word "presumably" in regard to the signature not being made by an "individual" owing to the fact that the Civil Court has dealt with hundreds of unusual name change applications over the years, so anything is possible).
The court was a little surprised at plaintiff's response owing to the fact that the matter was set down for a "hearing" on this issue, having rejected a seance, transcendental meditation and telepathy as efficient methods to resolve the issue presented. Concerned that the court was mistaken as to the nature of a hearing and that it was operating under some bizarre local interpretation of the word, such as regional differences between "soda and pop," or "hero, submarine and hoagie," the court decided to consult Blacks' Law Dictionary, 5th edition. It defines "hearing" as: "Proceeding of relative formality (though generally less formal than a trial), generally public, with definite issues of fact or of law to be tried, in which witnesses are heard and parties proceeded against have right to be heard, and is much the same as a trial and may terminate in final order."
Counsel for the plaintiff is "Zwicker & Associates, PC." This is an interstate law firm with its main office located in Andover, Massachusetts. The Department of State lists it with an address in Rochester, New York. A review of the file has that address as 120 Allens Creek Road, in Rochester on the summary judgment papers; the summons and complaint and a stipulation with the defendant lists 150 Allens Creek Road, while correspondence submitted in regard to the scheduled hearing lists 120 Allens Creek Road as well as a New York City office at 299 Broadway, New York, New York. The letterhead does not contain the name of any attorney admitted to practice in New York State. A check of the attorney registration file discloses no one admitted in New York with the name "Steven P. Baum," the person who signed the letter sent to the court in lieu of appearing for the "hearing."
The letter head from Zwicker also discloses: "This Law Firm Employs One Or More Attorneys Admitted To Practice In The Following States:..." What follows is a list of twenty-two jurisdictions, including New York, in which the plaintiff's attorneys apparently practice law. The multi

Download 2011_51054.pdf

New York Law