The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210 were read on this motion to DISMISS. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Phone Administrative Services, Inc. (“PAS”) brings a qui tam action under the New York False Claims Act (State Finance Law, art. XIII [hereinafter "NYFCA"') alleging defendant telephone carries systematically under-remitted surcharges intended to fund the 911 emergency system. Defendants1 move, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(3), (5), and (7), and CPLR 3016, to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety, arguing that plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action, the complaint's allegations are insufficiently pled, and prior public disclosure bars this action. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied with a limited exception. BACKGROUND New York State funds its 911 emergency telephone service using surcharges on telephone services (Fourth Amended Compl. 2 [hereinafter "Compl."] [NYSCEF Doc No. 177]). The State legislature enacted Article 6 of the County Law, authorizing municipalities to, among other things, adopt local laws “impos[ing] a surcharge in an amount not to exceed thirty-five cents per access line per month on the customers of every service supplier within such municipality to pay the costs associated with obtaining, operating, and maintaining the telecommunication equipment and telephone services needed to provide an enhanced 911 emergency telephone system to serve such municipality” (County Law §303 [1]). However, municipalities having a population of one million people or more are “authorized and empowered to adopt local laws…to impose a surcharge in an amount not to exceed one dollar per access line per month on the customers of every service supplier within such municipality to pay for the costs associated with obtaining, operating and maintaining the telecommunications equipment and telephone services needed to provide an enhanced 911 emergency telephone system to serve such municipality” (id.). The County Law further provides that “[t]he appropriate service supplier or suppliers serving a 911 service area shall act as collection agent for the municipality and shall remit the funds collected as the surcharge to the fiscal officer of the county every month” (County Law §305). In November 1991, New York City adopted the Enhanced 911 Telephone Surcharge Act, that mandates the surcharge “be imposed on a per access line basis on all current bills rendered for local exchange access service within the 911 service area,” and that “[n]o such surcharge shall be imposed upon…more than seventy-five exchange access lines per customer per location” (Administrative Code of City of NY §11-2324 [a], [b] [1]). New York City’s surcharge law further provides that “[i]n accordance with the provisions of article six of the county law, as amended, there is hereby established a surcharge of one dollar per telephone access line per month on the customers of every telephone service supplier within the city of New York” (Administrative Code of City of NY §11-2323 [a]). PAS, in its complaint, alleges that the telephone company defendants knowingly underbill 911 surcharges in five different ways, and submit false remittance forms to local governments to conceal the underbilling (Compl.
3-4). First, defendants undercount the number of access lines. For instance, when defendants offer service through primary rate interface (PRI) technology,2 they should bill their customers for twenty-three access lines, but routinely bill their customers for less (id.
