Single Violation is Adequate

[David A. Szwak]

A single violation is sufficient to support judgment for the consumer. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996); Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1993); Cirkot v. Diversified Systems, Inc., 839 F.Supp. 941 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 1993); Austin v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, Inc., 834 F.Supp. 557 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 1993); Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F.Supp. 502, 505 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 1990); Supan v. Medical Bureau of Economics, Inc., 785 F.Supp. 304, 305 (U.S.D.C. Conn. 1991).

[David A. Szwak]

The Act imposes strict liability unless the debt collector can demonstrate that its violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error, notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid any such error. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 33-34 (2d Cir.1996). A single violation of the Act is sufficient to impose liability. Cavallaro, 933 F.Supp. at 1153 (citing Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60, 62 [2d Cir.1993] ).

Desantis v. Roz-Ber, Inc.
51 F.Supp.2d 244
E.D.N.Y.,1999.
May 28, 1999