Author Topic: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??  (Read 5226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

spinn

  • Strike 1
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« on: October 23, 2006 07:21:05 PM »
Anyone know anything about this New York Law Firm?

Specifically regarding unethical behavior?


Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2006 08:33:43 PM »
I haven't found much...yet...

Their contact information:  (http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2540305_1 )

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn

4 Bridge Street
Glen Cove, NY 11542-2542
Phone:    (516) 759-2200
Fax:    (516) 759-4995

Findlaw's lawyer directory lists them as a collections law firm (should we be so surprised?).  In fact, in 2000, "Credit and Collections World" listed them as sharing the #6 largest collections law firm with Batzar and Weinberg, PC, with 82% of the collections being consumer debt.:

http://www.creditcollectionsworld.com/12cov00.htm

They are also listed as a member of the "Debt Buyers' Association": http://we./dba/whoswho.php3
So, it's likely they are a JDB.

Do they behave?  Maybe better than you would think:  This February 2006 is the story of a cancer patient who was unfortunate enough to have the firm come after them for a debt (from the "Times Herald-Record" (recordonline.com )):

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060212/NEWS/60726132/-1/NEWS0205

Quote
News
Creditors won't cut cancer patient any slack

By Christine Young
February 12, 2006

Ann Caldwell of Middletown taught school until she got her first cancer diagnosis 20 years ago. She worked part-time until the fall of 2004, when she was hospitalized. Caldwell got stuck for a while in a nursing home, but by the spring of 2005, she was back in her home, using a wheelchair.

<<snip>>
Caldwell owes First USA $4,108.37 in credit-card debt. They want their money – now.

Did you know that in New York, if someone obtains a judgment against you, they can freeze your bank account? Caldwell recently learned the hard way – when First USA’s lawyers placed a restraining order on her checking account at Orange County Trust.

Normally, the only money in her account is an $805 monthly deposit from Social Security, which is exempt from restraining orders. But Caldwell had just borrowed cash from another credit card.
She had no sooner deposited it than First USA froze it. Caldwell only found out when she was about to pay some utility bills, called the bank for her balance, and learned it was several thousand bucks in the hole.

She had gotten the First USA credit card in the 1980s and had always made the required payments. When she became too sick to work, she wrote to First USA, explaining she was disabled. She promised to pay them $5 a month. For two years, she kept that promise.

...[Then]in August 2005, she received a court summons. A Long Island law firm, Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, had filed suit ... She wrote a letter to the lawyers and to Middletown City Court. “I am seriously ill, totally disabled, and unable to appear in court ... She explained that her only income was from Social Security. “They totally ignored me,” she said.

Her daughter, Anne E. Caldwell, called the law firm and tried to reason with them. “It’s just terrible,” she told me. “I tried to explain to these people that she could lose her house very easily. They said, ‘Well, you pay it.’ ...

A phone call to the law firm connected me to Jordan Kaplan, who is handling Caldwell’s account. He explained that when a judgment is entered in New York, the creditor is allowed to attach wages, restrain bank accounts and place liens on personal property. But pensions, IRAs and Social Security are exempt – unless they are in the same account with nonexempt funds....

Isn’t this cold? I asked.

“No one is looking to financially harm or emotionally harm or injure anybody,” Kaplan told me. “We have a million cases here, and every one is another story ...

I have reason to believe that Kaplan has already released Caldwell’s account from the lien. <<snip>>

The law firm was not to blame as far as garnishing the account is concerned, and apparently did release the funds.  Yes, they were "cold", but that situation was not as mean as it looks...but let's keep reading...

A poster to Bud Hibbs' "Watch List" was also looking for information:

http://www.budhibbs.com/agency_watch_list_submissions.htm

Quote
  Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney, & Flynn, Glen Cove, NY    March 28, 2006

Just needed to know if there were any class action law suits on these guys. Jo Kennedy is acting as an in house collection attorney and the Mullooly law firm on Bridge St in Glen Cove file a lot of judgments daily in Buffalo, NY. I am not clear but I do not think you need a collection license in Buffalo, NY. Just a five thousand dollar bond. Let me know what you find out.

Nothing on class actions, but that is interesting: File a lot of judgments everyday. In Buffalo.  I wonder who some of their clients must be... ::)

And...more from the "Watch List"...and earlier entry which indicates that they are not exactly wearing halos:

Quote
Mullooly, Jeffrey Rooney and Flynn    February 14, 2006

Ms. Costen is one of those so-called "Collection Managers" at this law firm. When you send Validation letters to their office, please make sure you send it Certified, because they will claim they did not receive it. They are not flexible, they will not work with you. Your best bet is to again, get them to validate the debt and be sure to send it certified. Don't let these jerks get the best of you.

They sue...but they won't go to the trouble of validating a debt?  Which they are required to do?   Hmmmm!

“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

spinn

  • Strike 1
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2006 08:44:32 PM »
Rotty...you are good thanks.

They claim to have a judgment for this debt but as of yet, we can not find one.

I figured it was a jdb. I guess it is too late to DV if they do have a judgment....but what if they are lying and dont have a judgment?

And the only away funds can be retsrained...outside of for govt debts (taxes, student loans) is if they have a judgment, correct?

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2006 09:24:51 PM »
Where are you? I am not sure what state you are from. They might be able to restrain funds pre-judgment (prejudgment remedy), but maybe not.  Depends on state law.

DV them:  They would have to send you a copy of the judgment if it exists--and they likely will if it does.  Also try the courts in which it might be filed if there is one.  If it's only a arb. award that has not been entered in the court yet, you don't have much to worry about until they do--they cannot garnish you on that basis, the award has to be entered first.  Ditto if there is a judgment, but it was awarded elsewhere and it has not yet been domesticated in your state's courts.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

spinn

  • Strike 1
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2006 11:29:50 PM »
Its in New York and I have called the courts but they have no record of it. I will be going to the courts in person as soon as I can get off work.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2006 01:47:39 AM »
Well...I have been searching the Laws of New York trying to locate whether there is a provision for prejudgment remedies.  There may well be such provision in the Civil Practice Laws and Rules (CVP).  So, watch them...they might well try it.  Not much of a chance from what I hear, but...:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

This is Article 63, section  6301:

Quote
§  6301.  Grounds for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
  order.  A preliminary injunction may be granted in any action  where  it
  appears  that  the defendant threatens or is about to do, or is doing or
  procuring  or  suffering  to  be  done,  an  act  in  violation  of  the
  plaintiff's  rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to
  render the judgment ineffectual,or in any action  where  the  plaintiff
  has  demanded  and  would  be  entitled  to  a  judgment restraining the
  defendant from the commission  or  continuance  of  an  act,  which,  if
  committed  or continued during the pendency of the action, would produce
  injury to the plaintiff.
A temporary restraining order  may  be  granted
  pending  a  hearing
  for  a preliminary injunction where it appears that
  immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result unless  the
  defendant is restrained before the hearing can be had.

In other words, the court can order, before a court hearing takes place that the defendant not do something pending the outcome of such hearing IF the plaintiff would be injured thereby.  Like, the defendant's taking property and making it unavailable to settle a judgment if the chances are good that a plaintiff's ability to recover be severely impaired should there be a judgment.

The Article continues...

Quote
  §  6311.  Preliminary injunction.   1. A preliminary injunction may be
  granted only upon notice to the defendant. Notice of the motion  may  be
  served with the summons or at any time thereafter and prior to judgment.

 
  (Inapplicable sections edited)

Preliminary injunctions can be granted at any time, including being served with the summons.

Quote
Rule 6312. Motion papers; undertaking; issues of fact.  (a) Affidavit;
  other  evidence.  On a motion for a preliminary injunction the plaintiff
  shall show, by affidavit and such other evidence as  may  be  submitted,
  that there is a cause of action, and either that the defendant threatens
  or  is about to do, or is doing
or procuring or suffering to be done, an
  act in violation of the plaintiff's rights respecting the subject of the
  action and tending to render  the  judgment  ineffectual;  or  that  the
  plaintiff  has  demanded and would be entitled to a judgment restraining
  the defendant from the commission or continuance of an  act,  which,  if
  committed  or continued during the pendency of the action,
would produce
  injury to the plaintiff.

This part is the authorization under law for prejudgment remedies.  So, despite what one may hear, NY State Law DOES have this provision available.

Quote
    (b) Undertaking.  Except as provided in section  2512,  prior  to  the
  granting  of  a  preliminary  injunction,  the  plaintiff  shall give an
  undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court, that  the  plaintiff,
  if  it  is  finally  determined  that  he  or she was not entitled to an
  injunction, will pay to the defendant all damages and costs which may be
  sustained by reason of the injunction, including:

    1. if the injunction is to stay proceedings in another action, on  any
  ground  other  than  that  a report, verdict or decision was obtained by
  actual fraud, all damages and costs which may be, or  which  have  been,
  awarded  in the other action to the defendant as well as all damages and
  costs which may be awarded him  or  her  in  the  action  in  which  the
  injunction was granted; or,

    2.  if  the  injunction is to stay proceedings in an action to recover
  real property, or for dower, on any ground other than  that  a  verdict,
  report  or  decision was obtained by actual fraud, all damages and costs
  which may be, or which have been, awarded to the defendant in the action
  in which the injunction was granted, including the reasonable rents  and
  profits  of,  and  any wastes committed upon, the real property which is
  sought to be recovered or which is the subject of the action for  dower,
  after the granting of the injunction; or,

   3.  if the injunction is to stay proceedings upon a judgment for a sum
  of money on any ground other than that  the  judgment  was  obtained  by
  actual fraud, the full amount of the judgment as well as all damages and
  costs  which  may be awarded to the defendant in the action in which the
  injunction was granted.


(c) Issues of fact.  Provided  that  the  elements  required  for  the
  issuance of a preliminary injunction are demonstrated in the plaintiff's
  papers,  the  presentation  by  the  defendant of evidence sufficient to
  raise an issue of fact as to any of such elements shall not in itself be
  grounds for denial of the motion.
In such event the court shall  make  a
  determination  by  hearing  or  otherwise  whether  each of the elements
  required for issuance of a preliminary injunction exists.

The plaintiff has to provide proof to the court that they can pay the full damages should it be determined that the order against the defendant was sought and granted without sufficient grounds to do so.  This is probably either by depositing the amount with the court or by bond.  This indicates that such prejudgment remedies are a risky manouever.

If the defendant can convince the court to grant the order, it can take effect without prior notice, a feature of prejudgment remedy law generally:

Quote
§  6313. Temporary restraining order.  (a) Generally. If, on a motion
  for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff shall  show  that  immediate
  and irreparable injury, loss or damages will result unless the defendant
  is restrained before a hearing can be had, a temporary restraining order
  may  be  granted  without  notice. Upon granting a temporary restraining
  order, the court shall set the hearing for the preliminary injunction at
  the earliest possible  time.
<<snip>>

    (b)  Service.    Unless  the  court  orders  otherwise,  a   temporary
  restraining  order together with the papers upon which it was based, and
  a notice of hearing for the preliminary injunction, shall be  personally
  served in the same manner as a summons.

    (c)  Undertaking.    Prior  to the granting of a temporary restraining
  order the court may, in its discretion, require the plaintiff to give an
  undertaking in an amount to be fixed  by  the  court,  containing  terms
  similar  to those set forth in subdivision (b) of rule 6312, and subject
  to the exception set forth therein.

If it's used improperly, such temporary restraining order can be lifted, also without notice, and may well leave the moving party liable for damages:

Quote
§  6314.  Vacating  or  modifying  preliminary injunction or temporary
  restraining order.  A defendant enjoined by a preliminary injunction may
  move at any time, on notice to the plaintiff, to vacate or modify it. On
  motion, without notice, made by a  defendant  enjoined  by  a  temporary
  restraining  order,  the  judge  who  granted  it,  or in his absence or
  disability, another judge, may vacate or  modify  the  order.  An  order
  granted without notice and vacating or modifying a temporary restraining
  order shall be effective when, together with the papers upon which it is
  based,  it  is  filed with the clerk and served upon the plaintiff.
As a
  condition to granting an  order  vacating  or  modifying  a  preliminary
  injunction  or  a  temporary  restraining order, a court may require the
  defendant, except where the defendant is a public body  or  officer,  to
  give  an  undertaking,
in  an amount to be fixed by the court, that the
  defendant shall pay to the plaintiff any loss sustained by reason of the
  vacating or modifying order.

The same protection granted earlier to the defendant if the order is issued is also granted to the plaintiff if the defendant wants to have the order vacated.

Quote
§  6315.  Ascertaining  damages  sustained  by  reason  of preliminary
  injunction or temporary restraining order.   The  damages  sustained  by
  reason of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be
  ascertained  upon motion on such notice to all interested persons as the
  court shall direct. Where the defendant enjoined was  an  officer  of  a
  corporation  or  joint-stock  association or a representative of another
  person, and the amount of the undertaking exceeds the damages  sustained
  by  the  defendant  by reason of the preliminary injunction or temporary
  restraining  order,  the  damages   sustained   by   such   corporation,
  association  or  person  represented,  to the amount of such excess, may
  also be ascertained. The amount of damages so ascertained is  conclusive
  upon  all  persons  who  were  served with notice of the motion and such
  amount may be recovered by the person entitled  thereto  in  a  separate action

The amount of damages, if the temporary injunction/restraining order results in damages, the court determines how much they shall be. Those damages are then sued for in a separate action.

Article 62 supports the existence of such prejudgment remedy:

Quote
§  6201. Grounds for attachment. An order of attachment may be granted
  in any action, except a matrimonial  action,  where  the  plaintiff  has
  demanded  and  would  be  entitled,  in  whole  or  in  part,  or in the
  alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when:

    1. the defendant is a nondomiciliary residing without the state, or is
  a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in the state; or

    2. the defendant resides or is domiciled in the state  and  cannot  be
  personally served despite diligent efforts to do so; or

    3.  the  defendant,  with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate
  the enforcement of a judgment that might  be  rendered  in  plaintiff's
  favor,  has  assigned,  disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or
  removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts;
<<snip>> (inapplicable section removed)

    5.  the  cause  of action is based on a judgment, decree or order of a
  court of the United States or of any other court which  is  entitled  to
  full  faith  and  credit in this state, or on a judgment which qualifies
  for recognition under the provisions of article 53.

They can seek an order to attach property if it is feared that it will be disposed of to thwart a judgment or future judgment...including one granted outside the state that has not yet been domesticated!

This is even more support for the existence of a prejudgment remedy:

Quote
§  6211.  Order  of  attachment  without  notice.  (a)  When  granted;
  contents.  An order of attachment may be granted without notice,  before
  or  after service of summons and at any time prior to judgment.
It shall
  specify the amount to be secured by the order  of  attachment  including
  any  interest,  costs  and sheriff's fees and expenses, be indorsed with
  the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney and shall  be  directed
  to  the  sheriff  of  any  county  or  of the city of New York where any
  property in which the defendant has an interest is located  or  where  a
  garnishee  may  be  served.   The order shall direct the sheriff to levy
  within his jurisdiction, at any time before final  judgment,  upon  such
  property  in  which  the  defendant  has an interest and upon such debts
  owing to the defendant as will satisfy the amount specified in the order
  of attachment.

ANY property...which would include...the money in that bank account!  There is NO exception here that would preclude such a garnishment order.  Also note the term "prejudgment remedy" does not appear; the language of the statute would cover the action.  There is also no specific mention of bank accounts, but they are property which is subject to garnishment.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006 01:49:43 AM by Rottweiler »
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

spinn

  • Strike 1
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2006 02:38:36 AM »
Thanks again...

By the way...this isnt me it is a friend in New York, that is why I am vague on some facts. I implied it was me earlier because I am wary of them watching.

My friend is totally unaware of any judgment or action against him. All he has ever seen is a letter this past summer, marked Personal and Confidential. He did not reply to that letter and threw it away (unfortunately).

I have a feeling this is a sewer service action backed up by a worthless affidavitt from these pillars of society.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2006 03:36:39 AM »
He threw out a letter marked "Personal and Confidential"; there obviously was no markings indicating it was a law firm.  And there should not have been:  That's a requirement for service by mail in NY State:  "Personal and Confidential" marked on an envelope that otherwise has no indication it's from a law firm or concerns a court action.  In other words, service by mail is acceptable.  He should check the courts ( it might be on the Web) to see the docket and what happened.

If it was recent enough, and a judgment resulted, he might be able to get it vacated.  He should, if this is the case, go to the court and get the entire case file, especially the certificate or proof of service.  If it was indeed done according to rule--and it sounds as if it was-- he might be out of luck.

I posted the Rules for service of process in NY recently...the link:  http://debtorboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=3215.msg23717#msg23717

That has the information that he needs to know about what is good service.  What he should do next depends on what he finds out.

So, the rules pertaining to replevin/garnishment are indeed worth looking into anyway...even if prejudgment remedy is out.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006 03:39:02 AM by Rottweiler »
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

spinn

  • Strike 1
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2006 04:34:01 AM »
I know...lol....I started that thread you referenced. And you said that in order for service to occur, the recipient had to mail back a form stating he received the letter. He did not do that.

An interesting twist though, while my friend lives and works in New York, he banks in Florida because he used to live there. It is a national bank but the money was taken by the New York Branch, not the Florida Branch where the account is located.

All this is just speculation until we get the forms from the bank and the case file though.

phoenix2ny

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 395
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2006 04:49:05 AM »
MJR&F have dunned me in the past. DV'd them back asking for proof and never heard back from them.  Point your friend towards this board.  In the meantime, the best course of action would be to go down to the courts and see if there are any judgments there.  If there is one and it is for an alleged debt owed to a JDB and it has been filed within the past 5 years, your friend should move to have the judgment vacated because of lack of service.  This puts the case back on the calendar and with some help from DB your friend should be able to fight the case successfuly.

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2006 02:56:43 PM »
Sorry, spinn...I located the post under my nick, and did not look back to see who started the thread I referenced...oops!

Now, about the fact that the bank got the granishment in NY but he lives in FL:  If it's a national bank, they CAN garnish the account anywhere there is a branch.  Even if the account holder lives and accesses the account elsewhere.  No violation here.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006 02:59:49 PM by Rottweiler »
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

xYBDx

  • Master of the Obvious
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 655
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2006 05:19:02 PM »
Remember, outside nassau county, the poor excuse for a judicial system.... the "justice courts" is a nightmare far worse than any small claims in the other 49 states. NewYork, outside NYC, is still living in the 16th century.
Current scores: TU 695 EQ 758 EX 721

foolsmission

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1058
Re: Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn??
« Reply #12 on: October 24, 2006 10:43:02 PM »
Remember, outside nassau county, the poor excuse for a judicial system.... the "justice courts" is a nightmare far worse than any small claims in the other 49 states. NewYork, outside NYC, is still living in the 16th century.
Don't the Red State types LIKE the 16th century ???