| Cavalry SPV I, LLC v Fenwick |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 50818(U) [63 Misc 3d 155(A)] |
| Decided on May 23, 2019 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Ronald Fenwick, appellant pro se. Schachter Portnoy, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered June 4, 2018. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover the sum of $4,027.54 based on an alleged breach of a credit card agreement and upon an account stated, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which motion defendant opposed. By order entered June 4, 2018, the District Court found that plaintiff had failed to establish an account stated but granted plaintiff summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of a credit card agreement. On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of a breach of a credit card agreement.
We find that plaintiff's evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment was sufficient to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for breach of a credit card agreement. The affidavits of plaintiff's employee and that of its [*2]assignor were sufficient to lay a proper foundation for plaintiff's business records, which establish that a $4,027.54 balance was due on defendant's credit card account (see CPLR 4518; Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc., 30 AD3d 336 [2006]; 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 an issue of fact.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
GARGUILO, J.P., TOLBERT and EMERSON, JJ., concur.