Bank of Am., N.A. v. Francois

Bank of Am., N.A. v Francois (2021 NY Slip Op 50031(U)) [*1] Bank of Am., N.A. v Francois 2021 NY Slip Op 50031(U) [70 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on January 15, 2021 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on January 15, 2021 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ 2018-2352 K C Bank of America, N.A., Respondent, against Macorel Francois, Appellant. Macorel Francois, appellant pro se. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (Eric S. Pillischer of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lizette Colon, J.), entered August 9, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8,371.02. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $8,371.02 for breach of a credit card agreement and upon an account stated. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8.371.02. Contrary to defendant's contention, the Civil Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, as plaintiff's causes of action are seeking the recovery of money where the amount sought does not exceed the jurisdictional monetary limit of the Civil Court (see CCA 202). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment on its cause of action for breach of a credit card agreement, by tendering sufficient evidence that defendant entered into a credit card agreement, which he breached when he failed to make the required payment pursuant to the agreement (see Citibank [S.D.], N.A. v Brown-Serulovic, 97 AD3d 522, 523-524 [2012]; Citibank [S.D.] N.A. v Sablic, 55 AD3d 651, 652 [2008]; Feder v Fortunoff, Inc., 114 AD2d 399, 399 [1985]). We decline to consider defendant's remaining contentions, which are either without merit or raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]; Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to pass upon whether plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to judgment on its cause of action for an account stated. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: January 15, 2021