The Honor able Joseph M. McL aughlin, origina lly a member

of the pa nel, re cused 1 him se lf fr om c on sid e ratio n o f t

his matte r. Th e re ma ini ngme mbe rs of the pa ne l, who are in agree ment, have de cided the c ase pur suant to 2d Cir. R. § 0.14(b). 09-2641-c v Ba nk v. Cooper, Parof

f, Cooper & Cook
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RULINGS BY SUMM ARY O RDER DO NOT H AVE PRECEDENTIAL EF F ECT. CITATION TO SUMM ARY O RDERS F ILED AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007 , IS P ERMI TTED AND IS GOVERNED B Y THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND F EDERAL RULE OF AP P ELLATE PRO CEDURE 32.1 . IN A B RIEF OR OTH ER P AP ER IN WH ICH A L ITIGANT CITES A SUMM ARY O RDER, IN EA CH PAR

AG RA PH IN WHICH A CIT AT ION APP EA RS , AT LEA ST O NE C ITA TION MUS T EITH ER BE TO THE F EDERAL APP ENDIX O RB E ACCOM P ANIED BY THE NOTATI ON: “( S U MMA R

Y OR D E R). ” APA R T Y C IT IN GASU MMA R Y ORD E R

MUS T SE R

V E A C OPY OF THAT SUM MARY ORDER TO GE T H E RWITH THE P AP ER IN WHI CH TH E SUMM ARY ORD E R I S C IT E D ON A N Y PA R T Y N OT RE PRE S E N T E D BY C OU N S E L U N L E S S T HE SUMM ARY O RDER IS AVAILAB LE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE W HI CH IS PUB LICLY ACCESSIB LE WITH OUT P AY MENT O F F E E ( S U C H AS TH E DATABASE AVAILAB LE AT HT T P://WW W. C A 2. U S C OU R T S . G OV/) . I F N O C OPY I S S E R V E D BY RE A S ON OF T HE AVAILAB ILITY O F TH E O RDER O N SUCH A D ATABAS E, THE CITATIO N MUST INCLUDE REF ERENCE TO TH AT DATAB ASE AND THE DOCK ET NUM B ER O F TH E CASE IN WH ICH THE O RDER WAS ENTERED. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 16 day th of De cembe r, two thousand nine. Pr e se nt: ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges
. 1

________________________________________________ TODD C. B ANK,

Plaintif f-Counter-Defe ndant-Appellant , v. No. 09-2641-c v CO OPE R, PA RO F F , CO OPE R & CO OK , I RAG. CO OPE R, PH I L I P S. PA RO F F , A DA M P. COOPER, S HARON E. COOK ,-2- Defendants-Counterc laimants-Appellees
.

_______________________________________________ ForPlaintiff-CounterDe fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: T ODD C. B ANK , pro s e , Kew G arde ns, NY F or De fe nd ants - A DA M P. C O O PER (Ira G . Cooper, on the brief ), Counterclaimants-A

ppellees: Cooper, Parof f, Cooper & Cook, Kew Ga rdens, NY Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (Weinstein, J

.). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

be and he re by is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Todd C. B ank appe als from the Ma y 27, 2009 Memorandum, Or der & J udg ment of the District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York ( Weinstein, J .) granting summary judgme nt to defenda

nts. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the fac ts and proce dural history

of the c ase. Ba nk claims that defe ndants violated five pr ovisions of the Fe dera l Debt Collection Practice s Act (“ FDCPA”) , 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq ., when they sent him a rent de mand notice stating that he owed $2,854.79 in pa st due rent a nd fee s, and dema

nding that he pay

that amount
o r s urr en d er

p o s s es s i o n , i n

d ef au l to f w h i ch th e l an d l o rdwo u l d co m m en ce s um m ary

p ro ce ed i n gs for possession. B ank first a rgues that the inclusion of fe es in the re nt demand notice w as mis le a din gpurs ua

nt t o 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(A ), (5) , and (10) beca use under New Y ork law, defe ndants could not rec over posse ssion of his rent-stabilized apartment f or his failure to pay fee s. See Silber v . Schwartzman , 5 7 5 N
. Y
. S. 2 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 6
- 2 7 ( 1 s t D e p ’ t 1 9 9 1 ) ( p e r c ur ia m)
. We conclude that the inclusion of fe es did not rende r the re nt demand notice f atally defe ctive, see-3-

Brusco v. M

iller , 6 39 N. Y. S.2 d 2 46 , 2 47 (1 st D e p’ t 19 95 ) (pe r c ur iam) , o r m isl e a din g . In f a c t, defe ndants did commence summary proce eding s in state court a nd defe ndants preva iled. B ank ne xt co nte nd s th at th e re nt d e mand no tic e vio late d th e F DC PA b e c a us e it f a ile d to disclose that it was fr om a debt collec tor. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). We disagree . The “question of whe ther a

communication complies with the F DCPA is determined fr om the perspe ctive of the least sophisticated c onsumer.” Jacobson v . HealthcareFin. Servs., Inc
. , 516 F.3d 85, 90 ( 2d Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Here , the thirty -day debt
va lid atio n le tte r s tate d th at de fe nd ant C oo pe r, Paro ff , Co op e r & Coo k h a d b e e n r e ta ine d to
c oll e c t a de bt o f $ 2, 85 4. 79 c on sis tin gof B ank s’ pa st d

ue re nt. Gi ve n th is l e tte r, the le a st
so ph ist ic ate d c on sume r w ou ld u nd e rs tand that th e re nt d e mand

no tic e , whic h b or e the same date as the de bt validation letter, wa s from the same law firm, a nd demande d the same sum, wa s from a debt c ollector. Finally , Ba

nk argues that def

endants violated the FDCPA’s prohibition ag ainst “[t] he collection of a

ny amount (includingany

. . . fee . . .) unless such amount is ex pressly authorized by the agree ment cre atingthe debt,” 15 U .S.C. § 1692f(1), when the y included a $35 ba d chec k fee in the rent de mand notice be cause the lease authorized only a $25 bad c heck f

ee. B ank admitted at ora l argument, howeve r, that def endants ne ver a ctually

collecte d a $35 bad c heck f ee. There fore , we do not find a violation of section 1692f(1) , which prohibits the collec tion of unauthorized fee s. Furthe r, we do not find defe ndants’ attempt to collec t $35 to be an “unf air or unconsciona

ble means to . . . attempt to collect any debt.” See id. § 1 69 2f

. O ur c on c lus ion

is bo lst e re d b y

bo th p art ie s’ re c ognit ion that th e inc lus ion

of a $3 5 f e e ins te a d o f a

$2 5 f e e wa s a cler ical er ror.-4-

In a dd iti on

to h is a rgume nts on

the me ri ts, B ank

c onte nd s th at th e a dju dic atio n o f h is c a se by a se nio r j ud g e vio late d Art ic le I I I . T he argume nt i s w ith out me ri t. S e nio r j ud g e s a re fu lly commissioned Article I I Ijudge s, and the Supreme Court has expressly held that upon assuming senior status, a se nior judg e “doe s not surrende r his commission, but continues to act under it.” Booth v. United States , 2 91 U. S. 3 39 , 3 50 -5 1 ( 19 34 ); se eals o U nite d S tates v . M oo re , 101 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1939). We have c onsidered the rema inder of pla intiff-appe llant’s arguments and conc lude that the y la c k me ri t. A c c or din g ly , f or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
.
FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK By :_________________________________