| Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC v Lall |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03284 [127 AD3d 576] |
| April 21, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,Respondent, v Richard Lall, Appellant. |
New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Shanna Tallarico of counsel), forappellant.
Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Woodbury (David Szalyga of counsel), forrespondent.
Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., New York (Ian Weinstein of counsel), forProfessors of Evidence at Fordham University School of Law and Albany Law School,amici curiae, and (Marcella Silverman of counsel), for CAMBA Legal Services, Inc.,Legal Services NYC, MFY Legal Services, Inc., New Economy Project, QueensVolunteer Lawyers Project, Inc., The Financial Clinic, The Legal Aid Society, Schlanger& Schlanger, LLP, The Bromberg Law Office, P.C., The Law Office of AhmadKeshavarz, DC 37 Municipal Employees Legal Services, Lincoln Square Legal Services,Inc., and St. Vincent de Paul Legal Program, Inc., amici curiae.
Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered on orabout October 15, 2013, which affirmed a judgment, Civil Court, Bronx County(Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered April 18, 2012, after a nonjury trial, in plaintiff's favor,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's proof of the underlying debt obligation was shown through defendant'stestimony that he used the credit card issued by plaintiff's assignor and by theself-authenticating account statements (see Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs. Inc. v Trataros Constr., Inc.,30 AD3d 336 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). Evidence ofthe assignment of defendant's account was the affidavit of sale, which, although createdby the assignor, was properly introduced as a business record through the testimony ofplaintiff's employee (seeLandmark Capital Invs., Inc. v Li-Shan Wang, 94 AD3d 418, 419 [1st Dept2012]). Plaintiff's reliance on documents of this type was a sufficient basis on which topermit its employee to lay the [*2]foundation for theadmission of the affidavit of sale; contrary to defendant's contention, it was not necessarythat there be a special relationship between plaintiff and its assignor.
We decline to consider defendant's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, thatplaintiff failed to supply the best evidence of the assignment of the account.Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ. [PriorCase History: 41 Misc 3d 128(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 51682(U).]