Consumer complaint received 2026-04-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds
Company: Smith Carroad Wan & Parikh, P.C.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, my bank account was restrained at the direction of a law firm attempting to collect on a judgment of approximately {$210000.00}. However, the amount restrained was approximately {$430000.00}, nearly double the judgment amount, with no explanation or supporting documentation. This inflated restraint is based on false and unsupported calculations, including incorrect interest amounts, improper accrual periods, and inaccurate dates used in filings. Prior counsel had already placed the law firm on notice of fundamental defects in the underlying action, including lack of proper service and lack of jurisdiction. Despite being on notice, the law firm proceeded with enforcement. The law firms filings rely on sworn statements submitted by a representative of the creditor that are false and form the basis of the judgment and subsequent enforcement. In addition, in court filings submitted in opposition to my Order to Show Cause, the law firm falsely asserted that my request to exempt my disability income should be denied because I failed to provide proof of exemption. This statement is false. I provided documentation of exempt funds on or about XX/XX/XXXX, prior to any debt collection action being filed, and again on or about XX/XX/XXXXXXXX in response to their requests. Despite having this information in their possession, the law firm failed to review or acknowledge it and continued enforcement. Following the restraint, I repeatedly contacted both the bank and the law firm to assert that the account contained exempt funds and to request the exemption forms required under New York law. Beginning on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I made daily requests for these forms. The law firm stated that the forms had been sent to the bank, while the bank stated they had not received them. This continued for approximately one week. When the forms were eventually made available, they were not in a format that I could submit. There was no electronic submission option or accessible method provided. Under New York law, the exemption claim form itself constitutes XXXX XXXX proof that funds are exempt, and no additional documentation is required at the initial stage. Despite this, the law firm demanded that I provide extensive additional documentation tracing each deposit, including tax records, award letters, and bank statements. I complied and provided documentation on or about XX/XX/XXXX. I was told the materials would be reviewed, but no meaningful review occurred. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, the law firm acknowledged receipt of my documentation but stated it was insufficient and again demanded additional proof. In the same communication, the law firm suggested that entering into a payment plan or settlement agreement may result in release of the accounts in a more expedited manner. This indicates that continued restraint of funds, including exempt funds, was being used as leverage to pressure resolution of the underlying claim. The law firm also stated that approximately {$14000.00} had been available to me as of XX/XX/XXXX. However, by XX/XX/XXXX, those funds had already been used for essential living expenses, including medical care, rent, and groceries. This statement is misleading and does not reflect my current inability to access funds. Throughout this process, I sent no fewer than 12 emails to the law firm, including attorneys and staff, clearly stating that the account contained exempt funds and requesting relief. I also repeatedly informed them that I am XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I further explained that my XXXX child has XXXX XXXX and requires access to costly XXXX, particularly during peak XXXX season. Despite being placed on notice of both exempt funds and a serious XXXX situation, the law firm took no action to release or meaningfully review the restraint. As a result, I have been left without access to funds necessary to obtain essential XXXX, forcing repeated efforts to seek emergency care. In addition, despite being explicitly notified of my XXXX, the law firm failed to provide reasonable accommodations in the exemption process. They required submission methods that were not accessible and failed to offer any alternative means of compliance, effectively preventing me from asserting my statutory rights. This conduct is inconsistent with obligations under federal disability law, including Americans with Disabilities Act Title III. Further, in court filings, the law firm characterized my efforts to assert my statutory rights under New York and federal law as threatening. This characterization is improper and appears to be an attempt to deter or penalize the exercise of legally protected rights. This is not a simple dispute. The law firm enforced a restraint based on false and inflated amounts, relied on false sworn statements, made false representations to the court, ignored prior proof of exempt funds, obstructed the statutory exemption process, imposed requirements not required by law, used continued restraint as leverage for settlement, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations despite notice of disability. As of today, I remain without access to my funds.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation