Opinion
2019-30 Q C
05-21-2021
CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, v. Gulam CHOWDHURY, Appellant.
Gulam Chowdhury, appellant pro se. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (Michael K. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
Gulam Chowdhury, appellant pro se.
Rubin & Rothman, LLC (Michael K. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover the sum of $5,210.80 based upon an alleged breach of a credit card agreement, plaintiff moved for, among other things, summary judgment on its cause of action, which motion defendant opposed. As limited by his brief, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered October 11, 2018 as granted the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on its cause of action.
We find that plaintiff's motion papers sufficiently established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for breach of the credit card agreement. The affidavit of plaintiff's employee established a proper foundation for plaintiff's business records, which demonstrated that a $5,210.80 balance was due on defendant's credit card account ( see CPLR 4518 ; 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 a triable issue of fact.
Defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. We note that we do not consider factual assertions and any materials annexed to the brief on appeal which are dehors the record ( see Chimarios v Duhl , 152 AD2d 508 [1989] ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.