The plaintiff having moved, by notice of motion dated March 11, 2010, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 directing that summary judgment be entered herein in favor of the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint on the ground that there is no defense to the action, and the defendant having cross-moved, by notice of motion dated July 8, 2011, for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action is without merit, and said motion and cross-motion having duly come on to be heard.

NOW, upon reading the affirmation in of Adam J. Karns, Esq., attorney for the plaintiff, dated March 11, 2010, submitted in support of the motion, together with annexed exhibits and the affidavit of Robin Mays; and the affidavit in opposition to the motion and in support of the cross-motion submitted by the defendant's attorney, Francis J. Offermann, Jr., Esq., sworn to on July 8, 2011, together with the annexed exhibits and the affidavit of the defendant, sworn to on July 8, 2011; and the reply affirmation of Adam J. Karns, Esq., dated August 2, 2011, together with the affidavit of Bradley Cleek, sworn to on July 29, 2011, with annexed exhibits; and the reply affidavit of Francis J. Offermann, Jr., Esq., sworn to on August 18, 2011, with accompanying memorandum of law; and after hearing and considering the arguments of counsel to the parties, and due deliberation having been had, the following decision is rendered.

As noted in the Court's decision of June 15, 2011, the plaintiff's bill of particulars makes it clear that the plaintiff's claim rests upon loans allegedly made to the defendant upon a "Bank of America" credit card. The plaintiff submits copies of the credit card billing statements sent to the defendant. All of them prominently identify the sender as "Bank of [*2]America." The defendant denies having had any dealings with the plaintiff, FIA Card Services, and her attorney argues, given that the corporate name of the card issuer differs from the corporate name used by the plaintiff in the complaint, that the plaintiff has failed to establish its right to sue for the debt.

In reply, the plaintiff has submitted the affidavit of Bradley Cleek who identifies himself as "a custodian of records and an authorized Officer of Plaintiff FIA Card Services, N.A. for purposes of this affidavit." Based upon Mr. Cleek's affidavit, the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has standing to sue. The issuer of the credit card in question, "Bank of America, N.A.," merged into and became part of "FIA Card Services, N.A.," in October of 2006 (for some discussion of this corporate history, see Melman v. FIA Card Services, N.A., ___ S.E.2d ___ [Ga. Court of Appeals, October 28, 2011] and Chiang v. Bank of America, [slip opinion, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Mass., Civil Action No. 08-11908-RWZ, March 11, 2011]). It is to be noted that, starting with the October 2006 statement, the billing statements submitted by the plaintiff upon the motion each contain the notice, under the heading "miscellaneous," that "[t]his account is issued and administered by FIA Card Services, N.A."

Also based upon Mr. Cleek's affidavit, the Court finds that the billing statements are admissible as business records for the purposes of the motion. And, upon the sworn statement of Robin Mays, Litigation Support Representative for the plaintiff, that the statements "were delivered to and accepted without objection, seasonable or otherwise, by the defendant," the Court further finds that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case that it is entitled to judgment in its favor upon its cause of action for an account stated. In opposition, the defendant fails to raise any material issues of fact. Furthermore, the defendant has not established that she is entitled to judgment upon her cross-motion. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion shall be granted, and the defendant's cross-motion denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that judgment be entered herein in plaintiff's favor against the defendant in the amount of $15,467.68, with interest of $259.35, plus the costs and disbursements of this action.

Dated: November 16, 2011

_____________________________________

Acting Supreme Court Justice