In 2023, Citibank, N.A. initiated a lawsuit against KM in the District Court of Suffolk County, seeking to recover $4,058.52 for an alleged breach of a credit card agreement. KM, representing himself, denied liability in his answer. Citibank responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from its document control officer. She claimed personal knowledge of KM’s account and asserted that the charges reflected purchases and cash advances made using the credit card. According to her, KM had accepted the terms of the agreement by using the card and making payments, and had later breached the agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance.
The motion court granted Citibank’s application, and a judgment was entered, awarding the bank the full amount sought.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed. While acknowledging that Citibank had made a prima facie showing of a valid credit card agreement and breach, the appellate court focused on a critical gap in the bank’s evidence. Citibank had claimed that the account was governed by terms and conditions “as amended from time to time,” but failed to demonstrate that any amendments had been properly mailed to KM. The affidavit submitted did not include testimony from someone with personal knowledge of the mailing process, nor did it describe a standard office procedure designed to ensure proper mailing of such amendments.
Because Citibank did not establish that KM had received or was bound by any amended terms, the court found that it had not met its burden for summary judgment. The judgment was reversed, the order vacated, and the motion denied. No other issues were addressed.
Bet they wished they could amend that.
# # #
DECISION