Target Natl. Bank v Lovrin

[*1] Target Natl. Bank v Lovrin 2014 NY Slip Op 51031(U) Decided on July 1, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 1, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.


Target National Bank, Respondent,

against

Catherine Lovrin, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered November 1, 2012, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 9, 2013 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the November 1, 2012 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $16,391.62.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover the principal sum of $16,391.62 for, among other things, breach of a credit card agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The appeal is deemed to be from the judgment that was subsequently entered awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $16,391.62 (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 statements itemizing the credit card transactions and purchases, proving that defendant had used the credit card that had been issued to her (see Citibank [S.D.] 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 in opposition to the motion.

We note that defendant, who was self represented in the Civil Court, acted at her own peril and that she acquired no greater rights than any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995 [1998]). In addition, defendant's contention regarding plaintiff's lack of standing was raised for the first time on appeal and will not be considered (see HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Calderon, 115 AD3d 708 [2014]). In any event, defendant did not assert the affirmative defense that plaintiff lacked standing in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss and, thus, this defense has been waived (see CPLR 3211 [e]; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Denaro, 98 AD3d 964 [2012]).

Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 01, 2014