On April 23, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Kraus v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 02336, holding that a FDCPA claim failed for insufficient allegations of damages, explaining:
A plaintiff, in order to have standing in a particular dispute, must demonstrate an injury in fact that falls within the relevant zone of interests sought to be protected by law. Where a defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) based on lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing. To defeat a defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law, but must merely raise a question of fact as to the issue.
Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff lacked common-law standing to pursue her FDCPA claims. The plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating an injury-in-fact, since she merely asserted, without more, that the defendant sent her a notice that sought to collect a debt that she did not owe. Without any allegation that she relied upon the defendant’s alleged deceptive conduct to her detriment, or that it otherwise caused her harm, the plaintiff did not allege an injury-in-fact. In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact. To the extent the plaintiff contends that she possessed statutory standing under the FDCPA, separate and distinct from common-law standing, this contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).