Target Natl. Bank v Faitak

[*1] Target Natl. Bank v Faitak 2014 NY Slip Op 50608(U) Decided on March 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 27, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2012-2710 Q C.

Target National Bank, Respondent,

against

Lenora Faitak, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered September 14, 2012, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 27, 2012 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the September 14, 2012 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,602.31.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover the principal sum of $3,602.31 for breach of a credit card agreement and based upon an account stated, 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 $3,602.31, from which judgment 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 her (see Citibank (SD), N.A. v Harry, 37 Misc 3d 141[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52273[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; Discover Bank v Robinson, 24 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Defendant failed to dispute the validity or accuracy of those statements. In addition, defendant's defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was waived, as she failed to assert that defense in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211 [e]; American Exp Travel Related Svcs v Felix, 29 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51965[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

In view of the foregoing, we find that the Civil Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and we affirm the judgment.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 27, 2014