Litigation Byte

Second Department Applies “Injury-in-Fact” Requirement to Dismiss FDCPA Claims

December 1, 2025

On November 19, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss claims alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) for lack of standing.¹

In Terkeltaub, plaintiff alleged that defendant debt collector sent misleading letters in collecting a debt for medical services, which plaintiff did not legally owe since she was a Medicaid recipient. Notably, plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Defendant moved to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims under the FDCPA. The trial court denied such motion, and defendant appealed.

In reversing the trial court, the Second Department specifically held as a matter of first impression that “plaintiff failed to allege that she suffered an injury-in-fact as the result of the defendant’s alleged violations of the FDCPA” and therefore, “lacked standing to commence this action.” The Terkeltaub Court pointedly observed that “[t]he injury-in-fact requirement necessitates a showing that the party has an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated and has suffered a cognizable harm that is not tenuous, ephemeral, or conjectural but is sufficiently concrete and particularized to warrant judicial intervention.” The absence of allegations by plaintiff that she was particularly injured by the purported improper collection practices fundamentally undermined any FDCPA claims.  

Terkeltaub demonstrates that New York courts have begun to scrutinize the sufficiency of standing to assert claims for violations of federal consumer protection statutes in state court.

¹ Terkeltaub v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 06352 (2d Dep’t Nov. 19, 2025)