American Express Natl. Bank v. Kleiman
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33113(U) (American Express Natl. Bank v. Kleiman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
American Express Natl. Bank v Kleiman 2024 NY Slip Op 33113(U) September 6, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152537/2021 Judge: Debra A. James 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. INDEX NO. 152537/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK MOTION DATE 08/26/2021 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -
SHEILA KLEIMAN, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL
ORDER
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
ORDERED that the motion of the defendant Sheila Kleiman to
dismiss the complaint is denied, and it is further
ORDERED that defendant Sheila Kleiman shall serve and file an
answer to the complaint within 20 days from service of this order
with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel are directed to post on NYSCEF a proposed
preliminary discovery conference order or competing proposed
preliminary discovery conference order(s) at least two days before
October 24, 2024, on which date counsel shall appear via Microsoft
Teams, unless such appearance be waived by the court.
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page 1 of4 Motion No. 001
1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 152537/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2024
DECISION
The defendant Sheila Kleiman ("Kleiman") moves to dismiss the
complaint of plaintiff American Express National Bank ("AmEx")
(the "Complaint"), which seeks damages for breach of a credit card
agreement. She moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8),
asserting that she was not properly served with process, and that
the Complaint fails to state a meritorious claim for breach of
contract.
"The affidavit of service filed by plaintiff was prima facie
evidence that defendant was properly served with the summons and
complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) " JP Morgan Chase Bank v Dennis,
166 AD3d 530 (1st Dept 2018). The affidavit states that the
summons and complaint was left with the concierge, who confirmed
that the location was Kleiman's dwelling or usual place of abode.
See NYSCEF Doc. No. 011.
Kleiman does not submit her own affidavit, but instead,
submits an affirmation from her daughter Diane Kleiman, who is an
attorney. In such affirmation, Diane Kleiman states that Kleiman
never resided at the location where process was served. Attached
to such affirmation is a letter to Kleiman, in which AmEx "confirms
[Kleiman' s] assignment of [her daughter] as Account Manager",
which letter is addressed to Kleiman at a different address. See
NYSCEF Doc. No. 008.
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 152537/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2024
The unsworn affirmation of Kleinman's daughter is
insufficient to rebut the presumption of service or to warrant a
further hearing on such issue. See JP Morgan Chase Bank, 166 AD3d
530 (1 st Dept 2018) ("To rebut this prima facie showing, defendant
was required to submit a sworn, nonconclusory denial of service or
swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process
server's affidavit").
Moreover, Diane Kleinman identifies herself as an attorney
and it is unclear whether or not as "Account Manager" she is the
real party in interest in this action. Therefore, her use of an
affirmation, without the complete declaration "which may include
a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I
understand that this document may be filed in an action or
proceeding in a court of law", effective January 1, 2024, or
without a notary public acknowledgement, effective before January
1, 2024, pursuant to CPLR 2106, is not permitted. See Household
Finance Realty Corp of New York v Cioppa, 153 AD3d 908, 911 (2d
Dept 201 7) .
Finally, as argued by AmEx, the allegations of its complaint
are sufficient to state a cause of action against Kleiman for
breach of the credit agreement. In any event, the court may
consider the Affidavit of AmEx's Assistant Custodian of Records,
as to such Custodian's assertions that AmEx performed under the
credit agreement. See Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 (1994) and
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 152537/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 19 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2024
Grassi & Co., CPAS, P.C. v Honka, 180 AD3d 564, 565 (1st Dept
2020).
P- ~ .A - } ~ 20240906 l 64343DJ AME543 l 623A 7717E4 7CD8FFAC87F2E35A36F
9/6/2024 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.
~ ~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
152537/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs. KLEIMAN, SHEILA Page4 of 4 Motion No. 001
4 of 4 [* 4]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 33113(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-express-natl-bank-v-kleiman-nysupctnewyork-2024.