Adams v Bank of Am.

[*1] Adams v Bank of Am. 2016 NY Slip Op 50747(U) Decided on May 5, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 5, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2015-529 K C

Gloria Adams, Appellant,

against

Bank of America, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered August 18, 2014. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated April 1, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated April 1, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered August 18, 2014 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for defendant's alleged breach of contract and breach of warranty with respect to a credit card agreement between the parties. At a nonjury trial, plaintiff established that defendant had issued a credit card to her, which she had used to make purchases. She claimed that she had been unable to withdraw cash from the account because defendant had failed to provide her with a PIN for her credit card, which number was required for the withdrawal of cash. However, plaintiff admitted that, ultimately, she in fact had accessed all the credit and cash that she had in the credit card account. Defendant's witness testified that defendant does not provide its customers with a PIN and that it is the customer's responsibility to set up their own PIN for their account by calling customer service. Following the trial, the Civil Court dismissed the complaint.

In our view, plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case on any of her causes of action. Moreover, we note that even if plaintiff had established liability on the part of defendant, she failed to demonstrate that she had sustained any damages as a result of her alleged inability to withdraw cash from this account. Plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit. As the record supports the Civil Court's determination, we find no reason to disturb the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 05, 2016