| Collection Litigation: If it can be settled, we'll settle it. No "mystery adjournments." Same-day reporting - no waiting. |
We specialize in litigating and settling collection actions. Mr. Kingston personally
handles Civil Kings pro se, where we lead the field with concepts such as:
RADAR
We use this critical device to win victories in battle for our per diem collection clients. Our
staff reviews advance copies of Civil Kings pro se calendars (Parts 11, 12, 34 and 35)
before appearances . . . flagging cases for you while there's time for faxing documents and
calm discussion. The result? More settlements and other favorable outcomes than rushed
"I see this on today's calendar” calls.
EARLY SETTLEMENTS – AND VALUE
IF IT CAN BE SETTLED, WE'LL SETTLE IT. Our #1 priority is to settle cases at the
earliest possible appearance while charging competitive rates. A “cheap” rate lawyer
working on volume who settles a case after avoidable adjournments provides poor value –
charging more overall. Of course, failing settlement, we're always at the ready for trial.
SAME DAY REPORTING
Waiting interminably for appearance reports can be maddening. We send them the same day.
SUPPORT STAFF
Our support staff is here for you every business day to assist you with calendar, billing and other
matters. Attorneys choosing to operate without any staff cannot match this level of service.
NO "MYSTERY ADJOURNMENTS"
One report you will never get from us: "Conference adjourned to 6-24-09. Period."
Adjournments must have a reason.
NO BASELESS COMPROMISES
Defendants do not earn the right to automatic discounts by virtue of their repeated defaults
which forced your clients to sue them. We take the time to negotiate settlements which
are fair to your clients.
CALENDAR REDUNDANCY
Our use of radar as well as redundancy allow us to maintain extraordinarily accurate calendars.
RECENT RESULTS:
PLAINTIFF'S VERDICTS, OSC WINS
Mr. Kingston, a trial attorney, stands ready to try your case to a plaintiff's verdict should
settlement efforts fail. We settle so many cases that trials are uncommon. Some sample
verdicts in consumer collection trials follow:
June 2009: In Civil Kings Part 11 before Judge George Silver, Mr. Kingston won a
plaintiff's verdict for $8,697 against an obstinate, evasive defendant hell-bent on avoiding
his debt to Bank of America Visa, purchased by Cavalry Portfolio. We called defendant
as a hostile witness on our direct case, eliciting his denial of the account; he claimed in
part that his having a different BOA account somehow means he did not have the account
at issue. We then had the Court take judicial notice of a prior Order to Show Cause
filed by defendant in which he merely disputed the amount, arguing successfully that
defendant's sworn statement in support of his OSC is an admission of the account. Our
closing argument highlighted defendant's inconsistent sworn statements, leading the Court
to expressly find defendant's testimony not credible. (Cavalry v. Poncedeleon, 23510 KCV 08).
January, 2009: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Genine D. Edwards, Mr. Kingston
won a plaintiff's verdict for over $5,700 in an action brought by an assignee of a Citibank account,
notwithstanding defendant's self-serving denials of "recalling owing that amount" and defendant's
remarkable claim in the first part of her testimony that she didn't recall the account itself. (Mr.
Kingston, during cross-exam, elicited her admission that she did, in fact, recall the account and
knew very well that she owed money). (Cavalry v. Patricia Ward, 38413 KCV 2008).
November, 2008: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Kathryn E. Freed and in spite
of Defendant's repeated and self-serving denials of the account, Mr. Kingston won a plaintiff's
verdict in an action brought by an assignee of a wireless phone account. The account, which
had apparently been used for business purposes, was over $3,800, which the Court awarded
plus interest, costs and disbursements. Defendant had called as witnesses her mother and uncle
and claimed to be a victim of identity theft, in spite of statements being sent to her correct home
address and retained without objection. Defendant challenged the lack of a written contract
"connecting" her to the account. The Court found that in spite of defendant's denials, plaintiff
had established that the account was hers and that she failed to pay it. (Cavalry v. Charlene
Franvis, 138449 KCV 2006).
March 2007: In Civil Kings Part 11, Mr. Kingston won a plaintiff's verdict from Judge Genine
D. Edwards after a markedly one-sided trial in an action to collect on an auto loan for $6,000
plus interest and costs. We countered defendant's arguments of improper service (failure to
move to dismiss within 60 days of his Answer precludes him), that he was "supposed to" get
$1,000 cash back (contract said no such thing), that he didn't receive notices addressed to his
last known address (notices mailed presumed delivered; no requirement that every one is
certified; "unclaimed" certified letter irrelevant where same letter sent regular mail was not
returned) and that the "amount was wrong" because plaintiff auctioned the car for less than
"it was worth" (value irrelevant if auction commercially reasonable). (Condor Capitol v. Leach,
37767 KCV 2004).
January 2007: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Genine D. Edwards, Mr. Kingston
obtained a plaintiff's verdict in an action to collect on an auto loan. The verdict granted
plaintiff judgment for $4,500 plus interest at the contract rate of 17% from March 15, 2004,
costs and disbursements. (Queens Auto Mall v. Ayie-Motsoh, 6944 KCV 2005).
December 2006: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Sylvia G. Ash, Mr.
Kingston won a directed plaintiff's verdict of $8,000 plus costs, disbursements and interest
and denying defendant's $10,000 counter-claim in an action to collect a medical bill. We
countered defendant's arguments that the doctors agreed to accept whatever the insurance
company paid as payment in full (we had hearsay testimony stricken from the record and
adduced evidence that the doctors would never have made such statements, which would
be contrary to office policy and insurance regulations), and that the charges were "excessive"
(records witness testified that charges are usual and customary; no admissible evidence by
defendant otherwise). (Columbia Thoracic v. Mishulovin,114866 KCV 2005).
Other victories include a successful verdict after trial dismissing a claim by a defendant
against a collection law firm for damages allegedly incurred as a result of a judgment,
subsequently vacated, in another county, as well as the dismissal of frivolous and/or baseless
counter-claims by defendants in collection actions.
In addition, when a defendant files an OSC and settlement efforts fail, we argue the OSC. We
have a strong record of defeating OSCs and preserving judgments.
ADVANCED LITIGATION METHODS: "Know thy Judge"
We appear EVERY DAY in the Civil Kings pro se parts. This gives us a detailed
knowledge of the nuances of the judges before whom we appear which would be impossible
to obtain any other way. Our policy of acting upon that knowledge in representing your
interests provides a tactical edge in court.
handles Civil Kings pro se, where we lead the field with concepts such as:
RADAR
We use this critical device to win victories in battle for our per diem collection clients. Our
staff reviews advance copies of Civil Kings pro se calendars (Parts 11, 12, 34 and 35)
before appearances . . . flagging cases for you while there's time for faxing documents and
calm discussion. The result? More settlements and other favorable outcomes than rushed
"I see this on today's calendar” calls.
EARLY SETTLEMENTS – AND VALUE
IF IT CAN BE SETTLED, WE'LL SETTLE IT. Our #1 priority is to settle cases at the
earliest possible appearance while charging competitive rates. A “cheap” rate lawyer
working on volume who settles a case after avoidable adjournments provides poor value –
charging more overall. Of course, failing settlement, we're always at the ready for trial.
SAME DAY REPORTING
Waiting interminably for appearance reports can be maddening. We send them the same day.
SUPPORT STAFF
Our support staff is here for you every business day to assist you with calendar, billing and other
matters. Attorneys choosing to operate without any staff cannot match this level of service.
NO "MYSTERY ADJOURNMENTS"
One report you will never get from us: "Conference adjourned to 6-24-09. Period."
Adjournments must have a reason.
NO BASELESS COMPROMISES
Defendants do not earn the right to automatic discounts by virtue of their repeated defaults
which forced your clients to sue them. We take the time to negotiate settlements which
are fair to your clients.
CALENDAR REDUNDANCY
Our use of radar as well as redundancy allow us to maintain extraordinarily accurate calendars.
RECENT RESULTS:
PLAINTIFF'S VERDICTS, OSC WINS
Mr. Kingston, a trial attorney, stands ready to try your case to a plaintiff's verdict should
settlement efforts fail. We settle so many cases that trials are uncommon. Some sample
verdicts in consumer collection trials follow:
June 2009: In Civil Kings Part 11 before Judge George Silver, Mr. Kingston won a
plaintiff's verdict for $8,697 against an obstinate, evasive defendant hell-bent on avoiding
his debt to Bank of America Visa, purchased by Cavalry Portfolio. We called defendant
as a hostile witness on our direct case, eliciting his denial of the account; he claimed in
part that his having a different BOA account somehow means he did not have the account
at issue. We then had the Court take judicial notice of a prior Order to Show Cause
filed by defendant in which he merely disputed the amount, arguing successfully that
defendant's sworn statement in support of his OSC is an admission of the account. Our
closing argument highlighted defendant's inconsistent sworn statements, leading the Court
to expressly find defendant's testimony not credible. (Cavalry v. Poncedeleon, 23510 KCV 08).
January, 2009: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Genine D. Edwards, Mr. Kingston
won a plaintiff's verdict for over $5,700 in an action brought by an assignee of a Citibank account,
notwithstanding defendant's self-serving denials of "recalling owing that amount" and defendant's
remarkable claim in the first part of her testimony that she didn't recall the account itself. (Mr.
Kingston, during cross-exam, elicited her admission that she did, in fact, recall the account and
knew very well that she owed money). (Cavalry v. Patricia Ward, 38413 KCV 2008).
November, 2008: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Kathryn E. Freed and in spite
of Defendant's repeated and self-serving denials of the account, Mr. Kingston won a plaintiff's
verdict in an action brought by an assignee of a wireless phone account. The account, which
had apparently been used for business purposes, was over $3,800, which the Court awarded
plus interest, costs and disbursements. Defendant had called as witnesses her mother and uncle
and claimed to be a victim of identity theft, in spite of statements being sent to her correct home
address and retained without objection. Defendant challenged the lack of a written contract
"connecting" her to the account. The Court found that in spite of defendant's denials, plaintiff
had established that the account was hers and that she failed to pay it. (Cavalry v. Charlene
Franvis, 138449 KCV 2006).
March 2007: In Civil Kings Part 11, Mr. Kingston won a plaintiff's verdict from Judge Genine
D. Edwards after a markedly one-sided trial in an action to collect on an auto loan for $6,000
plus interest and costs. We countered defendant's arguments of improper service (failure to
move to dismiss within 60 days of his Answer precludes him), that he was "supposed to" get
$1,000 cash back (contract said no such thing), that he didn't receive notices addressed to his
last known address (notices mailed presumed delivered; no requirement that every one is
certified; "unclaimed" certified letter irrelevant where same letter sent regular mail was not
returned) and that the "amount was wrong" because plaintiff auctioned the car for less than
"it was worth" (value irrelevant if auction commercially reasonable). (Condor Capitol v. Leach,
37767 KCV 2004).
January 2007: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Genine D. Edwards, Mr. Kingston
obtained a plaintiff's verdict in an action to collect on an auto loan. The verdict granted
plaintiff judgment for $4,500 plus interest at the contract rate of 17% from March 15, 2004,
costs and disbursements. (Queens Auto Mall v. Ayie-Motsoh, 6944 KCV 2005).
December 2006: In Civil Kings Part 11, after trial before Judge Sylvia G. Ash, Mr.
Kingston won a directed plaintiff's verdict of $8,000 plus costs, disbursements and interest
and denying defendant's $10,000 counter-claim in an action to collect a medical bill. We
countered defendant's arguments that the doctors agreed to accept whatever the insurance
company paid as payment in full (we had hearsay testimony stricken from the record and
adduced evidence that the doctors would never have made such statements, which would
be contrary to office policy and insurance regulations), and that the charges were "excessive"
(records witness testified that charges are usual and customary; no admissible evidence by
defendant otherwise). (Columbia Thoracic v. Mishulovin,114866 KCV 2005).
Other victories include a successful verdict after trial dismissing a claim by a defendant
against a collection law firm for damages allegedly incurred as a result of a judgment,
subsequently vacated, in another county, as well as the dismissal of frivolous and/or baseless
counter-claims by defendants in collection actions.
In addition, when a defendant files an OSC and settlement efforts fail, we argue the OSC. We
have a strong record of defeating OSCs and preserving judgments.
ADVANCED LITIGATION METHODS: "Know thy Judge"
We appear EVERY DAY in the Civil Kings pro se parts. This gives us a detailed
knowledge of the nuances of the judges before whom we appear which would be impossible
to obtain any other way. Our policy of acting upon that knowledge in representing your
interests provides a tactical edge in court.
| We're better -We'll prove it. "I personally guarantee your satisfaction. Give me the chance to bring back the outstanding results that your clients crave, and you will be thankful that you did." -Jonathan S. Kingston |
 |  |  |  |
| © 2009 Jonathan S. Kingston & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved. New York State only. Attorney Advertising. |
 |
to ask about our 30-day
introductory discount for new clients.
introductory discount for new clients.
Litigation