Goldman & Warshaw is a high volume debt collection law firm located at 34 Maple Ave., Suite 101, Pine Brook, N.J. 07058.  It also has offices in Warwick, New York and New York City.

Goldman & Warshaw has been sued repeatedly by consumers for its unfair and deceptive debt collection practices.  For example:

• In February 2009, Letty Batista lived in Orange County, New York, but Goldman, Warshaw & Parella had sued her in Westchester County Supreme Court, and the firm’s process server filed papers claiming to have to served her with the summons and complaint at a years-out-of-date address, in Bronxville.  Ms. Batista came to Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP and we were able to help, getting the judgment vacated because of the failure by Goldman, Warshaw & Parella to establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the consumer.  The  Hon.  Mary Smith of Westchester Supreme Court issued an order finding that “the unrefuted documentary evidence submitted by defendant establishes that she did not reside [in Bronxville] at the time of purported nail and mail service purportedly effected in February 2009.”  Accordingly, the Court finds that proper personal jurisdiction over defendant had not been obtained and consequently that the entered default judgment must be and is hereby vacated.”  The court also ordered the debt collector’s income execution lifted.  Click here to read the judge’s decision.
• Goldman & Warshaw was accused by the New York Attorney General and the Administrator for the New York State Courts of using process servers who intentionally failed to properly serve New York consumers with a Summons and Complaint.  See Pfau v. Forster & Garbus, et al.  In many of these cases, the process server claimed to be at several locations at once.  This practice, known as “sewer service” is a classic unfair debt collection practice that denies a debtor his or her day in court.  The Attorney General settled its claims against Goldman, Warshaw & Parrella, P.C. in late 2010.
• Several New York Courts have thrown out debt collection cases brought by Goldman & Warshaw for lack of evidence and/or found that Goldman & Warshaw was guilty of deceptive or abusive collection practices.
• In a recent credit card debt case, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Rabel, 2010 WL 625226 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2010), the Court ruled against Goldman & Warshaw’s client for lack of evidence and vacated the default judgment against the debtor-defendant.  The only witness presented by the creditor “lacked personal knowledge” about the debt, and the court therefore gave “no weight” to his testimony.
• In 2006, Goldman & Warshaw and its client Asset Acceptance illegally obtained a default judgment and bank account restraint on a New York consumer who was declared legally mentally incapacitated.  See In re Garcia, 16 Misc.3d 1123(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 2007).  The Court excoriated Asset Acceptance and Goldman & Warshaw, P.C. , for their reprehensible collection activities and conduct, prohibiting collection on the debt and ordering the collector to pay mentally incapacitated consumer’s legal fees.
• Schlanger & Schlanger has successfully represented New York consumers against Goldman & Warshaw, and recently obtained dismissal in a case regarding an alleged $15,000 debt, after providing overwhelming evidence that the consumer had not been properly served.

Don’t be a victim of collection harassment or debt collection abuse.  If Goldman & Warshaw is trying to make you a victim of its aggressive collection practices contact the consumer protection attorneys at Schlanger & Schlanger, LLP at 1-800-685-2580 or by filling out our consumer questionnaire.