| Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v Lall |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 51682(U) [41 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on October 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Term, First 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York,
Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 18, 2012, after a nonjury trial, in
favor of plaintiff and awarding it damages in the principal sum of $5,587.19.
Per Curiam.
Judgment (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 18, 2012, affirmed, with $25 costs.
Plaintiff proved its standing to enforce the defendant's credit card debt by demonstrating that it (plaintiff) was the assignee of the debt at the time the action was commenced in October 2011 (see Citibank, N.A. v Martin, 11 Misc 3d 219, 225, 226 [2005]). Included in plaintiff's trial presentation were several documents establishing the assignment's existence and validity, particularly a March 30, 2011 notice of assignment informing defendant that plaintiff purchased the credit card account on March 18, 2011 (see UCC § 9-406[a]; IIG Capital LLC v Archipelago, LLC, 36 AD3d 401, 402-403 [2007]), and an "Affidavit of Sale of Individual Account" prepared by an officer of the issuer of the credit card attesting to the purchase. The latter document, admitted into evidence at the close of trial along with the other documents produced by plaintiff and previously marked for identification, is properly part of the record on appeal (see Matter of Westfall v Westfall, 28 AD3d 1229, 1230 (2006), lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]). Moreover, a proper business records foundation for the affidavit of sale, as well as the monthly statements of account bearing on the amount of the debt, was laid by plaintiff's witness, its custodian of records, who testified that the documents, although prepared by plaintiff's assignor, were relied on by plaintiff in its regular course of business (see Landmark Capital Ins., Inc. v Wang, 94 AD3d 418, 418-419 [2012]; Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc., 30 AD3d 336, 337 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 15, 2013