Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v Dannic

[*1] Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v Dannic 2015 NY Slip Op 50241(U) Decided on March 2, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 2, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570876/14

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Christine M. Dannic, Defendant-Appellant.

Plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), dated September 4, 2013, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its causes of action for breach of contract and account stated in the principal sum of $2,219.07.

Per curiam.

Appeal from order (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), dated September 4, 2013, deemed an appeal from the ensuing judgment (same court and Judge), entered October 21, 2013, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment affirmed, without costs.

We sustain so much of the order issued below as awarded plaintiff summary judgment on its account stated cause of action. The proof submitted by plaintiff in its initial moving papers, including the duly executed affidavit of a document control officer, established that defendant maintained an active credit card account with plaintiff since 1992; that plaintiff generated and mailed to defendant "periodic" statements of account between January 2009 and February 2011; and that defendant voiced no timely objection to any of the billing statements. Annexed to plaintiff's motion are 12 such statements of account - listing defendant's name, address and account number, and detailing the account activity and the various balances due - the last of which indicates a balance owed of $2,219.07, the amount sought by plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff thus established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its account stated cause of action (see Geron v Amritraj, 82 AD3d 404, 405 [2011]; Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v Jones, 272 AD2d 815 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 764 [2000]). In opposition, plaintiff did not deny her receipt or retention of the billing statements without objection, or otherwise raise a triable issue (see Bon Temps Agency, Ltd. v Towers Organization, Inc., 187 AD2d 376 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 02, 2015