Citibank (SD), N.A. v Minhas

[*1] Citibank (SD), N.A. v Minhas 2012 NY Slip Op 50586(U) Decided on April 2, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 2, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., NICOLAI and LaCAVA, JJ
2011-367 S C.

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

against

Hameed A. Minhas, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered December 3, 2010. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover the principal sum of $5,320.14 for breach of a credit card agreement and upon an account stated, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the breach of the credit card agreement cause of action. The District Court granted the motion.

We find that plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for breach of the credit card agreement. Plaintiff, by presenting the statements itemizing the credit card transactions and purchases, proved that defendant had used the credit card that plaintiff had issued to him (see Discover Bank v Robinson, 24 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Discover Bank v Williamson, 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50231[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as his attorney's affirmation lacked personal knowledge of the facts and, thus, was of no probative value (see Brown v Smith, 85 AD3d 1648 [2011]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed. [*2]

Nicolai and LaCava, JJ., concur.

Molia, J.P., taking no part.
Decision Date: April 02, 2012