Court Opinion

ID: 9947051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:09:17.748705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.841350
License: Public Domain

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Selka
               2024 NY Slip Op 30613(U)
                   February 21, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 518904/2021
                Judge: Francois A. Rivera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:53 AM                                                  INDEX NO. 518904/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                                                                                 AtIAS Term, Part 52 of the
                                                                                 Supreme Court of the State of
                                                                                 New York, County of Ki11gs;
                                                                                 located atJ60 Adams Street;
                                                                                 Brooklyn, New York 11201
                                                                                 on the 21 th day .of February
                                                                                 2024.

            HONORABLE FRANCOIS A. RIVERA
             ________________x
            JPMORGAN CHASEBANK, NA,                                              DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                 Index No. 518904/2021

                                            Plaintiff
                       --against-

            LEAHSELKA,
                                         Defendant
            ---------'----------------'x
                    Recitation of the papers considered on the notice of motion fikd by plaintiff JPMorgan
            Chase Batik, N.A. oi1 At1gust 11, 2023, under motion sequenceone, for ari order plrrsuant to
            CPLR § 3212, granti ng.summmy judgment in plaintiff's favor against defendant Leah Selka and
            striking the defendant's affirmative defenses asserted in the answer. Plain.tiff Leah Selkahas
            opposed the motion.

            -Notice of motion
            ~Statement of matel'ial facts
            -Affirmation in support
            -Affidavit insupport
                   Exhibits A-G
            -Affirmation in opposition
            -Affidavit in opposition
                   Exhibits A-B
            -Affirmation in reply
            -Response to plaintiff's statement ofmatel'ial facts

           BACKGROUND

                   .On July 29, 2021, plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a summons and

            complaint with the King's County Clerk's office (KCCO). On January 13, 2022, the defendant

            interposed and filed a verified answer. The compiairtt alleges seven allegations offact irt support,

                                                        Page 1 of5

                                                          1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:53 AM                                                     INDEX NO. 518904/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

           of two causes of action. The first cause of action is for a breach of an agreement The seconq

           cause.of action is for an account stated.

                   The complaint alleges the following salient facts. Plaintiff is a National Bank that

           administered an accornit used by the.defendant. The defendant breached the agreement

           governing the account by failing to n1ake periodic payments as required. The current account

            balance due and owing to the plaintiff is $52,261.61. In accordance with federal regulations,

           monthly periodic statements for the account were providedtothe defendant and kept by the

           defendant without appropriate.objection. Based on the plaintiff'srecotds there are no imresolved

           billing disputes related to the accoll11L

           LAWAND APPLICATION

                   It is well established that surrimary judgment may be granted only when no triable issue

           of fact exists (AlvarezvProspectHospital, 68 NY2d 320, ·324 [1986]). The burden is upon the

           moving party to make a prima facie showing that heor she is entitled to summaryjudgmentas a

           matter of law by presenting evicl,ence irt admissible form denionstrating the absence of:matetial

           facts (Giuffrida
                     .
                            v Citibank Corp.,.. 100 NY2d 72; 81 [2003]).

                   Afailure to make that showing requires the denial of the summaryjudgmentmotion,

           regardless of the adequacy of the opposing papers (Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062, 1064

           [I 993]). Ifa primafacie shov,,fog has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to

           produce evidenti ary proof sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact (Alvarez,

           68NY2dat324).

                   Pursuant to CPLR 3 212 (b), a. cotttt will grant a rriotfon ·for summary judgment upon a

           determination that the inovant1s papers justify holding, as a imittet of law; that there is no defense

           to the cause of action   qr that the cause qf action or defense has no merit. Furthermore, all the

                                                          Page 2 of 5

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:53 AM                                                     INDEX NO. 518904/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

           evidence must be viewed in the light most fayorable to the opponent of the motion (Marine

            lvfidland Bank v Dino & Artie'sAutomqtic Transmission Co., 168 AD2d 610 [2d Dept 1990]).

                     Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on its causes of action for breach ofcontract and to

            recover on an accountstated. The essential elements ofa cause of action to recover damages for

            breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiffs performance pursuant to the

           contract, the defendant's breach ofits contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the.

           breach (Paie v Aalbue, 222 AD. 3d 769 [2d Dept 2023]). An account stated requires ''an

           agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with

           respect to the co1Tectness of the accoui1titems and balance due" (D & NLendirig, LLC v Tachlis

           Corp., 221 AD3d 954, 955 [2d Dept2023JquotirtgF!eetwood14gency, Inc; v Verde Elec. Corp;,
                                   .                                                ..    .     .

           85AD3d 850, 851 [2d Dept 2011 fr

                     In the case at bal',the only sworn testimony submitted by the plaintiff in support ofthe

           motion was an affirm!ltion of John J. Sheerin, its counsel (hereinafter 'Sheerin), and a11 affidavit

           of Damina Jovell, an authorized signing.officer for the plaintiff (hereinafter JoveU). Sheetin's

           affiimation demonstrates no personal knowledge: of any of the transactional facts alleged in the

           complaint.
              .
                      An attorney's affirmation that is not based upon. personal knowledge isuf no probative

           at evidentiary significance (Nerayojf v Khorshad, 168 AD3d 866, 867 [2d Dept 2019], quoting

           Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455,456 [2dDept 20061). Sheerin's affirmation

           refers to the affidavit of Jovell and the exhibits referenced in Jovell's affidavitto support the

           motion.

                  Jovell's affidavit contains the following averred facts,among others. The defendant

           opened an account with the plaintiff at its predecessor fot the purpose of obtaining an extension

           ofcrediton Febrnary3, 2006. Plaintiff provided defendant with the cardmember agreement

                                                        Page 3 of 5

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:53 AM                                                       INDEX NO. 518904/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

           ("CMA'')-.governing the Ace.cunt, which contained the terms ~nd conditions.applicable to

           defendap.t'·-~ account. Itis.platniiff s regular practice-to, generate and provide, customers with

            written.notification ofchanges to the terms and conditions C1Change in Termsi 1) .contained in the

           CMA. After opening the a¢count, defendant did tise or authodze the use ofthe account fotthe

           -~cquisition ofgoods; services., or cash advance$. Defendant.failed to make .the required

           p1;1.yment_s._oi1 the accoµnhind-a !'.le:mand for payment has .be_~n made.

                    Plaintiff provided d.efendant with periodic •billing ·st_atemepts for the account; which

           described the charges, interest, fees, payments, credits; and the amountdue.on.the account The

           last payment on the account was 6h or about March 20, 2020,-iii theamountof $1,068.00. The

           fast charge, balance transft;r;. cash advance, at othet debit that defendaiit initi_ated -amt charged to

           the account was on or ab.out Mai-ch24; 2020, iii the ari1otm·t of $22.83. Tht;l account charged off

           on January 31, 2021. The total amount ofcredits andpayments since charge off is $0 .00. Credit

           has been given to defendant for alljust and lawful offsets; payments; and credits a:s of tl1e signing

           of-i:his affidavit.

                   Jovell 's affidavit "does lay .a proper foundation for admissimi as business records of the

           amendments to the credit card agreemenUind the monthly billing statert1ents (see CPLR 4518[a];

           PennyMac Corp. v ,Arora, 184 AD3cl 652, 655 [2d Dept.2020]). However, no evidence that those

           documents were mailed to·the defendantwasprovided. Jovell did not attest to.personal

           ._k:nowl~qg~ of the mailings or·of.standru:d office practice and-procedure designed to ensure that

           items were propel'ly addressed and ma.Iled"~md the business rectii:ds.did1i.otev1hcethe mailing of

           the a:ccountdocuments (see Deutsche BankNatL Trust Co. v Dennis, 181 A.D.3d 864, 866 [2d

           Dept 2020]; Citibank, N.A, v. Conti,,Scheurer, 172 AD3d 17, 21 [2d Dept 2019]).

                                                         ·Page 4 ofS

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/27/2024 11:53 AM                                                  INDEX NO. 518904/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/27/2024

                   Absent evidence that the billing statements were mailed to the defendant, the plaintiff

           failed to establish its prima facie entitlementto judgment as a matter of law on the cause of

           action tu recover on an account stated c~ee Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy,

            19 AD3d 161, 162 [2d Dept 2005]) .. Similarly, absent evidence that the amendments to the credit

           card agreement were mailed to the defendant, the plaititifffailed to establish its prima facie

           entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the bteach of contract cause of action (~:ee

           Deutsche Bank Nat/; Trust Co. v Dennis; 181 AD3d 864, 866 [2d Dept 2020]; Citibank, NA. v

           Conti~Scheurer, 172AD3d 17, 21 [2d Dept 2019]).

           CONCLUSION

                   The motion by plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for mi. order pursrtantto

           CPLR § 3212, grantingsummaryjudgment in plaintiff's favor against defendant Leah Selka and

           striking the defendant's affirmative defenses is denied.

                   The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court

           ENTER:                                       3~ A-~          J.S.C. ~
                                                            HON. FRANCOIS A. RI. ERA'

                                                       Pages of s

                                                         5 of 5
[* 5]