Citibank (SD), N.A. v Harry

[*1] Citibank (SD), N.A. v Harry 2012 NY Slip Op 52273(U) Decided on December 7, 2012 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 7, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2011-2433 Q C.

Citibank (SD), N.A., Respondent,

against

David Harry, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered July 15, 2011, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered August 16, 2011 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the July 15, 2011 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $24,499.23.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for breach of a credit card agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $24,499.23 from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

We find that plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for breach of a credit card agreement. Plaintiff presented the statements itemizing the credit card transactions and purchases, proving that defendant had used the credit card that had been issued to him (see Citibank [SD], N.A. v Minhas, 35 Misc 3d 128[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50586[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]

Rios, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 07, 2012