Upon the following papers read on defendants Trans Union LLC a/k/a TransUnion and Equifax Information Services, LLC's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211: NYSCEF [*2]documents 1 thru 14; it is hereby

ORDERED that moving defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety.

Plaintiff, Chaz Partosan, commenced this action on August 13, 2025, by filing a summons and complaint alleging violations of the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York Gen. Bus. Law § 380. The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff, who resides at 17 Goldsmith Avenue, Greenlawn, New York 11740, borrowed $5,647.00 from defendant Citizens Financial Group as a student loan. Plaintiff defaulted on the loan and did not repay defendant Citizens Financial Group and the three (3) year statute of limitations has expired. The remaining defendants are credit or consumer reporting agencies and have reported plaintiff's default. Plaintiff maintains that because his failure to repay his student loan is now beyond the statute of limitations that defendants are reporting inaccurate and misleading information, in that the debt has been chargedoff. Rather than answer, defendants Trans Union, LLC and Equifax Information Services, Inc. move to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211. In support of the motion, moving defendants submit an affidavit of counsel and a memorandum of law. In opposition, plaintiff submits a memorandum of law.

CPLR 3211 (a) (7) provides, "A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against [the party] on the ground that the pleading fails to state a cause of action" (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). "On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction. We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88, 614 NYS2d 972, 974 [1994]). In making a determination whether the complaint sets forth a cognizable claim, evidentiary material may be considered to "remedy defects in the complaint" (see Dana v Shopping Time Corp., 76 AD3d 992, 908 NYS2d 114 [2d Dept 2010]).

Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services LLC maintain that plaintiff has not alleged an inaccuracy in reporting as plaintiff's charged-off debt is accurate because plaintiff's claims are based upon a legal defense to the debt, the statute of limitations, as opposed to a factual inaccuracy in reporting the debt. In New York, the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt, it only bars the remedy (Faison v Lewis, 25 NY3d 220, 233, 10 NYS3d 185 [2015]; In re Estate of Lipsit, 21 AD2d 509, 513, 251 NYS2d 979, 984 [2d Dept 1964]). Moreover, under New York law a promise in writing by plaintiff to honor his obligation could revive the debt (General Obligations Law § 17-101). However, CPLR 214-I in 2022 limits the General Obligations Law, making the expiration of the statute of limitations permanent. Accordingly, the reporting of a charged-off debt is not inaccurate (Artemov v Trans Union, LLC 2020 WL 5211068), wherein Federal District Court Judge Cogan noted that the function of the credit report is to "present an evenhanded and fair representation of a particular consumer's ability and willingness to pay off debt, so as to encourage a creditor to take a risk and extend a line of credit to a particular consumer." Federal Courts have held that reporting a debt without notating the statute of limitations is expired is not materially misleading or inaccurate (Hossain v Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 693 F. Supp. 3d 358, 364 [E.D. New York 2023]).

Because plaintiff has not pled that the debt was not his and that he did not default on that debt, he has failed to allege an inaccuracy in reporting the charged-off debt and plaintiff's complaint alleging claims under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York General Business Law § 380 are dismissed.

Contrary to plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition, the debt here is not [*3]"permanently unenforceable" citing CPLR 214-i as plaintiff may in the future agree to honor his promise to pay, not because the debt is legally enforceable, but because he is a person who honors his promises and feels he has a moral obligation to do so.