Citibank, N.A. v Chowdhury

[*1] Citibank, N.A. v Chowdhury 2021 NY Slip Op 50488(U) Decided on May 21, 2021 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2019-30 Q C

Citibank, N.A., Respondent,

against

Gulam Chowdhury, Appellant.

Gulam Chowdhury, appellant pro se. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (Michael K. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Laurentina McKetney Butler, J.), entered October 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on its cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover the sum of $5,210.80 based upon an alleged breach of a credit card agreement, plaintiff moved for, among other things, summary judgment on its cause of action, which motion defendant opposed. As limited by his brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered October 11, 2018 as granted the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on its cause of action.

We find that plaintiff's motion papers sufficiently established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for breach of the credit card agreement. The affidavit of plaintiff's employee established a proper foundation for plaintiff's business records, which demonstrated that a $5,210.80 balance was due on defendant's credit card account (see CPLR 4518; Citibank [SD] N.A. v Jamieson, 32 Misc 3d 139[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51554[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Defendant's arguments in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. We note that we do not consider factual assertions and any materials annexed to the brief on appeal which are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 21, 2021