The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 002) numbered 37-39, 49, 51 were read on this motion.

Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") moves pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7) for dismissal of Plaintiff Jeffrey Struggs' Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, on the ground that the pleading fails to state a cause of action under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCRA"). Upon consideration of the motion and all submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

II. Facts

Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union, a consumer reporting agency, inaccurately reported his mortgage account with Wells Fargo Bank. The Complaint concedes that Plaintiff entered into a loan modification agreement, defaulted, and was thereafter subject to foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff contends that he was entitled to more favorable modification terms under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), and that Wells Fargo's failure to extend such terms ultimately caused his default. He further alleges that Trans Union's reporting of late and missed payments, balances, and other account details was inaccurate and that its subsequent reinvestigation was unreasonable.

Trans Union moves to dismiss, arguing that: [a] Plaintiff fails to allege any actual inaccuracy in the reported information; [b] Plaintiff fails to plead facts supporting an unreasonable reinvestigation; [c] Plaintiff's claims are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata, based on a final decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing parallel federal claims with prejudice; and [d] Plaintiff previously settled a separate federal lawsuit and expressly acknowledged the accuracy of the consumer disclosure that forms the basis of his claims here.

III. Conclusions of Law

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211[a] [7], the Court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference. (see Sinagra v City of New York, 127 AD3d 729 [2d Dept 2015]). However, allegations that are conclusory, vague, or contradicted by documentary evidence may not withstand dismissal. (see Morris v Morris, 306 AD2d 449 [2d Dept 2003]).

To sustain a claim under the NYFCRA, a plaintiff must allege that the reporting agency disseminated information that was factually inaccurate or materially misleading and that it failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation following a dispute. The NYFCRA is interpreted in pari materia with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and both statutes require the pleading of a specific factual inaccuracy.

A. No Plausible Inaccuracy Alleged

Plaintiff's claims fail at the threshold. The Complaint does not identify any specific falsehood in Trans Union's reporting. It alleges, in general terms, that Trans Union misreported "missed and late payments" and "incorrect balances," but fails to allege that any such payments were actually made or that the reported balances were untrue. The pleading instead focuses on the perceived unfairness of Wells Fargo's loan servicing conduct, not the accuracy of the credit [*2]information. These are legal grievances against the lender, not factual inaccuracies reported by the agency. As a matter of law, a consumer reporting agency is not liable under the NYFCRA for declining to reflect such legal disputes. (see Sessa v Trans Union LLC, 74 F4th 38 [2d Cir 2023]).

B. No Adequate Allegation of Unreasonable Reinvestigation

Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under GBL § 380-f. The Complaint merely asserts that Trans Union did not perform a reasonable reinvestigation but does not describe what steps it failed to take or what information it should have uncovered. To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union forwarded his dispute to the furnisher, Select Portfolio Servicing, which confirmed the accuracy of the reporting. This constitutes a legally sufficient reinvestigation under prevailing authority. (see Okocha v Trans Union LLC, 2011 WL 2837594 [EDNY]), aff'd, 488 F. Appx 535 [2d Cir 2012]).

C. Prior Federal Decision Warrants Dismissal

Plaintiff previously litigated substantially identical claims in federal court. In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Plaintiff's federal FCRA claims with prejudice, expressly finding that Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged any factual inaccuracies in Trans Union's reporting. That final judgment has preclusive effect here under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. (see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449 [1985]).

D. Settlement Agreement Bars the Claims

Finally, Plaintiff's prior settlement with Trans Union in a separate federal action included an express acknowledgment that his Trans Union consumer disclosure, dated August 11, 2022, and including the Wells Fargo account, was accurate and would not be used as a basis for future litigation. That representation, made knowingly and voluntarily, forecloses the present claims.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

The Complaint fails to allege any specific factual inaccuracy in Trans Union's credit reporting. It also fails to state a plausible claim for failure to reinvestigate. Plaintiff's claims are barred by prior adjudication and a binding settlement agreement.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the motion by Defendant Trans Union LLC to dismiss the Complaint (Motion Seq. No. 002) is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against Trans Union LLC; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly