Case ID: ad3d_127/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, v Richard Lall, Appellant.
    [8 NYS3d 101]—
   Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on or about October 15, 2013, which affirmed a judgment, Civil Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 18, 2012, after a nonjury trial, in plaintiffs favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs proof of the underlying debt obligation was shown through defendant’s testimony that he used the credit card issued by plaintiffs assignor and by the self-authenticating account statements (see Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc., 30 AD3d 336 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). Evidence of the assignment of defendant’s account was the affidavit of sale, which, although created by the assignor, was properly introduced as a business record through the testimony of plaintiffs employee (see Landmark Capital Invs., Inc. v Li-Shan Wang, 94 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiffs reliance on documents of this type was a sufficient basis on which to permit its employee to lay the foundation for the admission of the affidavit of sale; contrary to defendant’s contention, it was not necessary that there be a special relationship between plaintiff and its assignor.

We decline to consider defendant’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that plaintiff failed to supply the best evidence of the assignment of the account.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.