Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision affirms summary judgment granted to American Express National Bank against defendants Chaim Zelkovitz and others for breach of contract and account stated regarding unpaid credit card charges. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case with evidence of the credit agreement and billing statements, while the defendants failed to raise triable issues of fact. The lower court's order directing the clerk to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $500,404.37 was upheld.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim
- Whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the account stated claim
- Whether summary judgment was proper on those claims
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the account stated claim.
Key quotations
“The plaintiff tendered sufficient evidence that there was a credit card agreement, which the defendant[s] accepted by using the credit card and making payments thereon, and that the agreement was breached by the defendant[s] when [they] failed to make required payments.” (at 1)
Factual background
The plaintiff issued a credit card to the defendants, who accepted the card, used it, and made partial payments. The defendants later failed to make required payments, breaching the credit card agreement. The plaintiff also issued regular account statements which the defendants retained without objection.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed an action in Kings County Supreme Court to recover breach of contract and account stated damages. The trial court entered two orders on August 18, 2023 granting summary judgment on both causes of action and directing entry of a judgment for $500,404.37. The defendants appealed those orders.