What NY Debt Buyer Cases Reveal: Evidentiary Gaps and Procedural Pitfalls (2023-2025)

Disclaimer: My name is Tommy Eberle. I'm the CEO and one of the founders of DocketDrafter. I'm not a lawyer and have never been to law school. The following article is NOT legal advice. I manually wrote a CourtListener search query looking for judicial opinions on debt buyer plaintiff cases. Then, I downloaded the opinions and fed them all into Claude Code and had it look for patterns. Claude wrote almost the entire article. I instructed it to include links to all the cases it cited, and I've verified that the links are correct.

If you are a debt defense attorney, tell us what we got wrong. If you are interested in learning more about the methodology I used to create this article, I've included some detailed notes at the bottom. I wrote this intro myself, but everything that follows is 99% written by AI. Once again, this is NOT legal advice.

---

Consumer debt collection litigation in New York has changed significantly since the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (CCFA) took effect in May 2022. We reviewed seven published opinions from New York state courts involving major debt buyers—LVNV Funding, Midland Credit Management, Cavalry SPV, and Velocity Investments—decided between July 2023 and December 2025.

The results are notable: debt buyers faced significant setbacks in four of the seven unique cases we examined. Courts denied motions for summary judgment, rejected default judgment applications, and dismissed cases as abandoned. When debt buyers did prevail, they had thorough documentation and properly established chain of title.

This article presents a data-driven analysis of these cases. It is not legal advice.

---

The Consumer Credit Fairness Act's Strict Notice Requirements

The CCFA added new procedural requirements that courts are enforcing strictly—even when defendants do not appear to oppose.

In Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Wilkerson ( Sup. Ct. Bronx County, Dec. 4, 2024), the debt buyer moved for summary judgment against a pro se defendant on a $ 4,642.92 Home Depot credit card debt. The motion was unopposed. The court denied it anyway.

The problem was CPLR 3212(j), which the CCFA added to impose additional notice requirements when a plaintiff seeks summary judgment against an unrepresented consumer defendant. Under this provision, the plaintiff must submit to the clerk a stamped, unsealed envelope addressed to the defendant along with a specific notice in English and Spanish. The clerk must then mail this notice and note the mailing date in the case record. Summary judgment cannot be entered based on the defendant's failure to oppose unless there has been compliance with these requirements and at least fourteen days have elapsed from the clerk's mailing.

Cavalry SPV submitted an "additional notice" document to NYSCEF, but the court found multiple deficiencies: the notice was undated, no affidavit of service was included, there was no proof that the required stamped envelope was submitted to the clerk, and there was no notation in the record that the clerk ever mailed anything. The court noted in a footnote that "it is not clear that the procedures are in place in the Clerk's office to process such envelopes."

The opinion provides a detailed explanation of the CCFA's amendments, including the shortened three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214-i, the enhanced default judgment requirements under CPLR 3215(f) for debt buyers (requiring affidavits from original creditors, debt sellers, and the plaintiff establishing chain of title), and the additional mailing requirements under CPLR 306-d.

For practitioners, this case illustrates that CCFA compliance requires more than uploading documents to the e-filing system. The physical mailing component creates a coordination requirement between counsel and the clerk's office that can trip up even straightforward motions.

---

The One-Year Abandonment Rule

CPLR 3215(c) requires plaintiffs to move for default judgment within one year of a defendant's default. Miss this deadline, and the statute is mandatory: the court "shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned."

In LVNV Funding LLC v. Anova (Civ. Ct. Richmond County, Mar. 3, 2025), LVNV sought a default judgment on a $9,410.65 credit card debt. The defendant was served in March 2023 and never responded. The one-year deadline expired in May 2024. LVNV filed its motion in January 2025—eight months late.

LVNV's counsel argued "law office failure," claiming a "coding failure" prevented obtaining the necessary affidavits and documentation. The court was not persuaded.

The problem was the evidence contradicted the excuse. LVNV submitted three affidavits: one executed in November 2023 ( well within the deadline), and two others executed in June and July 2024. If a coding failure prevented obtaining documentation, how did LVNV get the first affidavit on time? And if the remaining affidavits were ready by July 2024, why wait another six months to file?

The court found the excuse "vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated," citing Henry v. Kuveke (9 AD3d 476) for the proposition that law office failure claims must be "detailed and credible." The motion was denied and the case dismissed as abandoned under the mandatory language of Giglio v NTIMP, Inc. (86 AD3d 301).

This outcome—complete dismissal of a case where the defendant never appeared—shows courts scrutinizing the internal operations of high-volume debt collection practices. Generic explanations about system errors will not suffice when the documentary record tells a different story.

---

Documentary Proof Deficiencies

Even without the CCFA's new requirements, debt buyers can stumble on basic contract formation elements.

In Midland Credit Mgt., Inc. v. Sharpe (Sup. Ct. Orange County, Apr. 15, 2024), Midland moved for default judgment on a $15,033.74 Citibank credit card debt. The defendant never answered. The court denied the motion—for the second time.

The first denial came because Midland failed to include the credit card agreement. On the renewed motion, Midland submitted the agreement but still lacked proof of the other contract elements.

The court outlined what was missing. For breach of contract, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing by "tendering sufficient evidence that there was an agreement, which the defendant accepted by his use of a certain credit card issued by the plaintiff and payments made thereon, and which was breached by the defendant when he failed to make the required payments" (Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A. v Keskin, 121 AD3d 635).

Midland submitted June and July 2020 statements showing a balance, but these statements alone did not prove the defendant ever accepted or used the card. There was no evidence of purchases, no evidence of payments establishing consideration. Only the charge-off amount and two monthly statements showing an alleged balance.

The account stated theory fared no better. An account stated requires "tendering sufficient evidence that [the creditor] generated account statements for the defendant in the regular course of business, that it mailed those statements to the defendant on a monthly basis, and that the defendant accepted and retained these statements for a reasonable period of time without objection, and made partial payments thereon" (Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A. v Keskin, 121 AD3d 635). Typically, this means providing statements "from the commencement of the implied contract to the default."

The court's language is instructive: the basic elements of contract formation—offer, acceptance, mutual intent, consideration—must be proven even on an unopposed default motion. Two months of statements showing a balance is not enough.

---

When Debt Buyers Prevail: Chain of Title Done Right

Not every case goes against the debt buyer. When documentation is thorough, courts grant summary judgment.

In Velocity Investments, LLC v. Lymon ( App. Div. 3d Dept., July 27, 2023), Velocity sought summary judgment on a $7,842.11 loan that originated with WebBank and was serviced by LendingClub before Velocity purchased it. The defendant argued Velocity lacked standing and was not the legal owner of the account.

The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for Velocity. The key was comprehensive documentation:

1. Affidavit from Velocity's compliance associate stating she had personal knowledge of the company's procedures for creating and maintaining business records, that when Velocity purchased accounts from LendingClub the purchase included business records which Velocity incorporated into its own records in the ordinary course of business.

2. Bill of sale between LendingClub and Velocity demonstrating the pool purchase.

3. Certificate of loan sale from WebBank and LendingClub confirming WebBank originated the loan, LendingClub serviced it, and WebBank conveyed all right, title, and interest to LendingClub.

4. Affidavit from LendingClub's senior manager confirming the specific loan was sold to Velocity.

5. Loan summary and truth in lending disclosure showing the original loan terms and servicer relationship.

The defendant challenged the business records foundation, arguing the affiant lacked personal knowledge of how LendingClub and WebBank maintained their records. The court rejected this argument. Under Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica (131 AD3d 737), records from other entities are admissible if the recipient "incorporated [them] into the recipient's own records or routinely relied upon [them] in its business."

Similarly, in LVNV Funding, LLC v. Barrow (App. Term 2d Dept., Dec. 12, 2025), the defendant moved to dismiss two credit card collection actions arguing she had no contractual relationship with LVNV. The Appellate Term affirmed denial of the motions, noting that "the standing of the assignee of a note has long been recognized" in New York jurisprudence dating to Merritt v Bartholick (36 NY 44, 1867). A valid assignee of credit card debt has the right to sue to collect.

These cases show debt buyers can prevail when they establish: (1) the original debt existed, (2) the debtor defaulted, ( 3) the original creditor assigned the debt, and (4) a documented chain of title leads to the plaintiff. Generic affidavits will not work—specific documentation at each step is required.

---

Defendant-Side Considerations

Two cases offer observations relevant to the defense side.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Alvarado (App. Term 2d Dept., Aug. 30, 2024), a judgment was entered against the defendant in 2015. In January 2020, he discovered his wages were being garnished. He waited until September 2022—over two and a half years later—to move to vacate the judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction (improper service).

The Appellate Term affirmed denial of the motion. Under Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v Kierstedt (119 AD3d 627), a defendant may waive lack of personal jurisdiction "where payments were made pursuant to a wage garnishment for a substantial period of time." Waiting two and a half years after learning of the garnishment constituted waiver.

In LVNV Funding, LLC v. Washington ( App. Term 2d Dept., Feb. 7, 2025), the defendant argued that because Citibank transferred the debt to LVNV while his bankruptcy petition was pending, the transfer violated the automatic stay and was void. The court disagreed.

The automatic stay protects "property of the estate"—the debtor's assets. But a debt owed by the debtor is an asset of the creditor, not the debtor. Citibank's transfer of what defendant owed did not constitute "an action or proceeding against defendant or an act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against defendant." The debt buyer's acquisition was valid.

---

Conclusion

These cases reveal patterns in how New York courts are handling debt buyer litigation post-CCFA:

Procedural requirements are being strictly enforced. The CCFA's notice requirements for summary judgment against pro se defendants require actual compliance—uploading documents is not enough if the clerk never mails the required notice.

The one-year rule has teeth. Courts will dismiss cases as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c), and vague "law office failure" excuses will not save a late-filed motion when the documentary record contradicts the explanation.

Basic contract elements must be proven. Even on unopposed default motions, debt buyers must establish acceptance and consideration—not just that a balance exists.

Thorough documentation works. When debt buyers submit complete chain of title documentation with proper business records foundations, courts grant summary judgment.

For practitioners on either side, these cases underscore that the details matter. The CCFA has raised the procedural bar, and courts are holding parties to it.

---

Table of Citations

Primary Cases Analyzed

Cases Cited Within Opinions

---

Methodology

My name is Tommy Eberle, and I'm the author of this article. I'm the CEO and one of the founders of DocketDrafter. I started the company in May 2025 with one of my best friends from the University of Michigan, Grant Willard. DocketDrafter is a software platform that generates pleadings like answers and discovery demands for NY debt defense attorneys. Before starting DocketDrafter, both of us were software engineers for about 5 years. Neither of us are attorneys. In fact, neither of us have even been to law school.

To create this article, I used the following search query on CourtListener:

(("lvnv funding") OR ("midland credit") OR ("Cavalry SPV") OR ("credit card debt") OR "FDCPA" OR ("account stated" AND "credit card") OR ("velocity invs")) NOT ("wife" OR "divorce" OR "mortgage" OR "husband" OR "foreclosure")

I also restricted the results to opinions filed on Jan 1 2023 or later. I restricted the jurisdictions to all NY state courts.

You can view the query on CourtListener here.

In plain English, I wanted to find all cases that involved consumer credit card debt. Both debt buyer and original creditor cases. In my query, I called out four debt buyer plaintiffs by name. I also included terms for "account stated" and "credit card", which surfaced a handful of original creditor cases (plaintiffs like JP Morgan and Bank of America). I included "FDCPA" in the query, since I've personally seen dozens of consumer debt answers in the NY courts that assert FDCPA counter claims.

Then, I used my software engineering skills to write a python script to download the search results using the free (and outstanding) CourtListener API. After doing this, I had a folder on my laptop that contained the text of 41 opinions.

Finally, I had Claude Code read through all the opinions that had debt buyer plaintiffs (7/41) and instructed it to write the following article. For any attorneys reading this that don't know what Claude Code is, it is a "coding" agent developed by Anthropic that is extremely useful in many contexts outside just programming.

After Claude wrote the article, I manually inspected the citations and quotes. It got almost all of them correct. I had to instruct it to fix a few quotes.