Jump to content

New Case Law for NY


BV80
 Share

Recommended Posts

CHASE BANK USA, NA v. GERGIS, 2011 NY Slip Op 51068 - NY: City Court, Civil Court 2011

CHASE BANK USA, NA v. GERGIS - Google Scholar

The court ruled that the affidavit of a Chase employee was insufficient to prove the affiant had knowledge of the creation and preparation of credit card statements presented by the Plaintiff.

"Moreover, Mr. Lavergne failed to demonstrate that the credit card statements were routine reflections of day-to-day operations of Chase or that Chases had an obligation to have the statements be truthful and accurate for the purposes of the conduct of the enterprise."

Chase Bank purchased Washington Mutual in 2008. Some of the statements had been prepared by WAMU. The court also decided the affidavit was insufficient to establish that the affiant had personal knowledge of the credit card statements created by Washington Mutual.

As stated above, some of the records that plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence through the testimony of Mr. Lavergne were apparently prepared by Washington Mutual Bank. The foundational testimony given by Mr. Lavergne concerning these records was identical to the foundational testimony he gave concerning the Chase records. It is well settled law that in order for a witness to lay the foundation for the admission of a document as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518[a], the witness must demonstrate personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures pursuant to which the document was made.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

I knew before I even clicked the link it had to be Noach Dear, he literally puts fear into every creditor. I think he has one of the highest appeal rates by creditors in all of the City of NY. Very very consumer friendly judge.

"Thus, defendant admitted that he received some statements and by inference that he had some form of contractual relationship with Chase."

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendant SHADY A. GERGIS and against plaintiff CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice on the merits.

Tbh the parts I bolded make no sense. In the same order he states that there is some type of contractual relationship with Chase, then in his decree he states that it's dismissed with prejudice on the merits.

That's why he is a little crazy lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see this getting appealed but the dismissal depends on whether the statements should have been admitted as evidence at all, even if the defendant agrees with some of them. I think the doctrine is the fruit from the poisoned tree. If the evidence itself is not allowable, then the party trying to admit the evidence cannot admit anything related to the evidence so even if the defendant admitted to the statements, the statements themselves are invalid and hence, no evidence can be admitted with the statements as the basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew before I even clicked the link it had to be Noach Dear, he literally puts fear into every creditor. I think he has one of the highest appeal rates by creditors in all of the City of NY. Very very consumer friendly judge.

"Thus, defendant admitted that he received some statements and by inference that he had some form of contractual relationship with Chase."

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendant SHADY A. GERGIS and against plaintiff CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice on the merits.

Tbh the parts I bolded make no sense. In the same order he states that there is some type of contractual relationship with Chase, then in his decree he states that it's dismissed with prejudice on the merits.

That's why he is a little crazy lol

I saw that part too. That's why I posted the case. Even though the Defendant inferred he had a relationship with Chase, the judge pointed out that the statements hadn't been authenticated.

I agree the case will probably be appealed, but for now, perhaps it will help someone. The argument against the affidavit and the affiant's lack of knowledge of the creation of the records is worth reading. It might be even more helpful for those who originally had an account with WAMU but ended up with Chase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum
I saw that part too. That's why I posted the case. Even though the Defendant inferred he had a relationship with Chase, the judge pointed out that the statements hadn't been authenticated.

The judge probably should have granted judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability only, then set the matter down for trial in regards to the damages. If any consumer gets in front of this guy, they stand a very good chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.