Judge Robert Sweet
Houslanger’s subpoena restrained Musah’s bank account to collect a judgment in FCC National Bank’s favor. The subpoena said “current judgment creditor/assignee is Palisades Collection.” Musah alleged Houslanger violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by falsely representing debt’s assignment to Palisades, unconscionably restraining his account without assuring Palisades’ right to the funds, and by attempting to collect an unauthorized debt. The court granted Houslanger dismissal, finding Musah failed to state a claim. Based on CPLR §5019(c), Musah claimed FCC’s assignment to Palisades legally ineffective. Discussing Law Research Serv. v. Martin Lutz Appellate Printers and distinguishing Tri City Roofers v. Northeastern Indus. Park, the court held that because §5019(c) does not require that an assignment be filed with the court in order for the assignee to be entitled to collect judgment, and because Musah did not allege any other defects with the assignment from FCC to Palisades or reasons that Houslanger lacked the right to collect on the judgment, Musah’s allegations lacked merit and failed to state a claim against Houslanger.
