D.N.
`
`AAN-CV-16-6022244S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
`
`J.D. OF ANSONIA/MELFORD
`
`V.
`
`:
`
`AT ANSONIA/MELFORD
`
`NANDITA RUCHANDANI
`
`LAW OFC N RUCHANDANI A/K/A NPR, LLC
`D/B/A LAW OFFICES OF NANDITA RUCHANDANI
`
`IUNE 21, 2017
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Practice Book §17~44 et seq., the Plaintiff, AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB,
`
`respectfully moves for summary judgment against the Defendants, NANDITA RUCHANDANI AND LAW
`
`OFC N RUCHANDANI A/K/A NPR, LLC D/B/A LAW OFFICES OF NANDITA RUCHANDANI (hereinafter
`
`referred to as the "Defendants”), in this matter as there are no genuine issues of material fact in
`
`dispute warranting a trial.
`
`in support hereof,
`
`the Plaintiff, AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
`
`(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintif ") submits the attached Memorandum of Law, an Affidavit
`
`provided by an agent of AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB as to the debt owing (attached hereto and
`
`marked as Exhibit A), and costs incurred (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B) and the
`
`Defendants’ Answer (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C).
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that its Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
`
`THE PLAINTIFF,
`
`By:
`
`431799
`Sara M. Gould
`
`Its Attorney
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANK&ASSOCLATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906‘Tel:(203}9611190"~)urisNo.421741
`
`

`

`D.N.
`
`AAN-CV—15-60222445
`
`SUPERiOR COURT
`
`AMERICAEQ EXPRESS BANK, FSB
`
`J.D. OF ANSONlA/MILFORD
`
`V.
`
`:
`
`AT MILFORD
`
`NANDITA RUCHANDANI, ET AL.
`
`JUNE 21, 2017
`
`MEMORANDUM OF UAW IN SUPPORT
`
`OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`l-
`
`EBEZS
`
`This matter is a collection action for an outstanding debt owing to the Plaintiff as a result ofa
`
`default by the Defendants in paying a credit card {Acct No: **********11005).
`
`Defendants made application for and at all times mentioned herein were the holders and
`
`users of an AMERlCAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB credit card (Acct No: **********11005). By acceptance of
`
`use of said credit card, the Defendants agreed to pay the amount of any purchases and/or cash
`
`advances upon rendition ofa statement and to pay the required finance charges on all outstanding
`
`credit purchases and/or cash advances. By use of said credit card, Defendants became indebted in
`
`the principal sum of $15,808.33 representing charges for goods, services or cash advances, together
`
`with any finance charge assessed thereon. The Defendants neglected and refused to make the
`
`monthly payments due since 12/05/2012.AMER1CAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB’S performance was fully
`
`executed by advancing funds on behalf of the Defendant.
`
`By way of its Complaint, the Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to collect the unpaid
`
`principal and costs due on said credit card. The Defendants have failed to raise and/or substantiate
`
`any genuine issue of material fact and the Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment.
`
`
`
`MARKHANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)96734190'JutisNo.421341
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`II.
`
`LAW &ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Pleadings, Affidavits and Other Proof Show that there are no genuine issues of
`materiai fact.
`
`“Practice Book§ 17-49 provides that summary judgment shali be rendered forthwith if the
`
`pieadings, affidavits and other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
`
`fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Citicorp Mortgagel Inc. v.
`
`m 41 Conn. App. 598, 601 (1996) Citing to Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane
`
`Associates, 219 Conn. 772, 780-781 (1991). The motion for summary judgment is designed to
`
`eliminate the delay and expenses of litigating an issue when there is no reai issue to be tried. mpg
`
`v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279 (1989). "To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing
`
`that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any
`
`genuine issue of material fact." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at_373. "[T}he genuine issue
`
`aspect of summary judgment requires the parties to bring forward before triai evidentiary facts, or
`
`substantial evidence outside the pleadings, from which the material facts alieged in the pleadings can
`
`be inferred .
`
`.
`
`. A material fact has been defined adequateiy and simply as a fact which will make a
`
`difference in the resuit of the case." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Que);
`
`Industriesl Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556 (2002). "In ruling on a
`
`motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather
`
`to determine whether any such issues exist." Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, (1988).
`
`Finaliy, “[a] motion for summary judgment shali be supported by such documents as may be
`
`appropriate, including'but 'no't'limit'e'd to affid'a'Vits, certified transcripts of t'est'imOny under oath,
`
`disclosures, written admissions and the like. ...” Connecticut Practice Book §17-45.
`
`
`
`MARKBANK&ASSOCIATESLLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'To}:(203)96?mli90'JurisNo.421741
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`A. Evidence offered by Plaintiff proves each eiement of its cause of action.
`
`The Affidavit and documents submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment prove each element of the Plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains three
`
`counts sounding in breach of contract, account stated and unjust enrichment.
`
`In order to prove
`
`breach of contract, the Plaintiff need only show that it performed its obligations under the contract
`
`and that the Defendant breached his/her obligations by "failing, refusing or neglecting to repay the
`
`plaintiff”. American Exp. Bank, FSB v. Zorba, Superior Court, judiciai district of Tolland, Docket No.
`
`CV—10—6001037-S (August 9, 2012). Where, as here, the contract is biiateral, the "acceptance of an
`
`offer need not be express but may be shown by any words or acts which indicate the offeree’s assent
`
`to the proposed bargain". Raff Co. v. Murphy, 110 Conn. 234,239 (1929). Consequently the need for
`
`a signed agreement between the parties is precluded "where their assent is otherwise indicated,
`
`such as by acceptance of benefits under the contract.” Schwarzchild v. Martin 191 Conn. 316, 321-22
`
`(1983).
`
`Piaintiff’s burden under the account stated theory is met "by showing it sent defendant
`
`monthiy statements evidencing balance due and defendant did not dispute baiance listed on
`
`statements prior to commencement of action." Credit One, LLC v. Headl 117 Conn.App. 92,100
`
`(2009). See also Generai Petroieum Products, inc. v. Merchants’ Trust Co, 115 Conn. 50, 56 (1932).
`
`Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Manger, 105 Conn.App. 764, 765 (2008).
`
`In addition, "where the
`
`defendant assents to the balance of an account, expressiy or
`
`impliediy,
`
`that presumptively
`
`estabiishes an agreement fixing the amount due.” CachI LLC v. Stugack, 49 Conn. L. Rptr. 403 (2010)
`
`citing to Citibank v. Kiiberg, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, CV 04
`
`0490701 (December 21, 2005). That said, "{a] cause ofaction based on the theory of account stated
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GleubrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)961—1190'JurisNo.421741
`
`

`

`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATE'ORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)9611190'JurisN0.4217’41
`
`does not require the plaintiff to have a signed agreement by the defendant in order to find the
`
`defendant liable on the account.” Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Watt, Superior Court, judicial
`
`district of New London, Docket No. CV«09-5013051-S (August 18, 2010). See also Discover Bank v.
`
`Claciirie, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV—08~5009650 (February 18,
`
`2010).
`
`Finaily, "unjust enrichment applies whenever justice requires compensation to be given for
`
`property or services rendered under a contract...”. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gagne V.
`
`Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 401 (2001). “A right of recovery under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is
`
`essentialiy equitable,
`
`its basis being that in a given situation it
`
`is contrary to equity and good
`
`conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at the expense of another." Meaney v.
`
`Connecticut Hosp. Ass’n, inc., 250 Conn. 500, 511 (1999). Aiso, a piaintiff is not barred from recovery
`
`under unjust enrichment where no remedy is avaiiable under breach of contract. See Hartford
`
`Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyai Goodrich Tire Co., 231 Conn. 276, 284 (1994).
`
`The evidence introduced by the Plaintiff satisfies the aforementioned requirements,
`
`specificaliy the Plaintiff submits the AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB Cardmember Agreement and
`
`billing statements from December 2012 through June 2013 (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
`
`D), which illustrate that the Defendants opened and were, at all times, the holders of the credit card
`
`issued by the Plaintiff. Piaintiff has shown that the Defendants used and benefited from the credit
`
`card and failed to repay the charges incurred as a result of said use. The Plaintiff sent the Defendants
`
`monthly statements (see Exhibit D)
`
`to advise the Defendants of his/her indebtedness, which
`
`statements remain undisputed. Additionally, the Plaintiff discharged its obligations arising under the
`
`contract by making payments on behalf of the Defendants to all vendors that accepted the credit
`
`card. See American Exp. Bank, FSB v. Zorbal Superior Court, Supra.
`
`

`

`Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden ofshowing the nonexistence
`
`ofany materiai fact; a party opposing summaryjudgment must substantiate its adverse claim by
`
`showing that there 1.5 a genuine issue of material fact, together with the evidence disclosing the
`
`existence of such issue. (Emphasis added.) Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Porto. 41 Conn. App. 598, 601
`
`(1996), citing to Practice Book §§ 380, 381 and Burns v. Hartford Hospital, 192 Conn. 451, 455 (1984).
`
`Conseq uently, "Once the moving party has met its burden
`
`the opposing party must present
`
`evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue it is not enough,
`
`however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.” (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted) Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 10 (2008) citing
`
`to Zieiinski v. Kotsoris, 279 Conn. 312, 318—19, (2006).
`
`In addition, "... such assertions are insufficient regardless of whether they are contained in [an
`
`answer] or a brief and mere statements of legal conclusions
`
`and bald assertions, without
`
`more, are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact capable of defeating summary
`
`judgment." (internal quotation marks omitted.) CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Coolbeth, 147 Conn. App. 183,
`
`193 (2013) citing to Callenderv. Reflexite Corp., 143 Conn. App. 351, 365—56, (2013).
`
`in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the triai court must View the evidence in the
`
`light most favorabie to the nonmoving party. The test is whether a party would be entitled to a
`
`directed verdict on the same facts. Citicorg Mortgage, Inc. v. Porto, 41 Conn. App. 598, 601 (1996).
`
`The Defendant has failed to produce any evidence that would establish that there is an issue of
`
`material fact; consequently the-re exists-no genuine issue of material fact and the Plaintiff-islentitled
`
`to Summary Judgment as a matter of law.
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW(166GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:{203)96?—1190'jurisNo.421741
`
`

`

`Ill.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Plaintiff’s Affidavit and supporting documents establish that the Defendant opened and
`
`maintained a credit account with the Piaintiff and failed to pay the monies owed in connection with
`
`same. As the Affidavit of the Piaintiff indicates, the Defendants received the monies from the
`
`aforementioned credit card. There is now due and owing from the Defendants $15,808.33 plus
`
`costs. As there are no genuine issues of material fact which woutd after the outcome of this case, the
`
`Piaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and damages in the amounts as set forth in the
`
`attached Affidavits.
`
`"The motion for summary judgment is designed to eiiminate the delay and expense of
`
`litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried.” Wilson v. New Haven 213 Conn. 277, 279
`
`(1989). The instant matter is precisely a matter for which summary judgment was designed. There
`
`are no issues of material fact which could alter the outcome of this case and the Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`summary judgment in its favor.
`
`THE PLAINTEFF,
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
`
`By:
`
`431799
`Sara M. Gould
`
`Mark Sank 8: Associates, LLC
`
`its Attorney
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT96906'Tel:(203)96?~1190'jurisNo.421741
`
`

`

`ORDER
`
`The foregoing Motion for Summary ludgment having been heard, it is hereby ORDERED;
`
`Amount due on claims:
`Plaintiff’s cost
`
`Total amount due:
`
`$15,808.33
`§
`478.28
`
`$16,286.61
`
`Amount of weekly payments
`
`S
`
`Date first payment is due:
`
`Dated:
`
`THE COURT
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Judge/Asst. Clerk
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing was mailed on this June 21, 2017 to:
`
`Nandita Ruchandani
`
`161 King’s Highway E., lst Floor
`Fairfield CT 06432
`
`Richad Paul Giarniero
`
`972 East Broadway Suite 203
`Stratford CT 06615
`
`By:
`
`431799
`
`Sara M. Gould
`
`MARKSANK&ASSOCIATES.
`
`
`
`LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad"Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)96?—1190‘jurisNo.4211?“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906‘Tel:(203)967’»1190°jurisNo.421741
`
`American Express Bank, FSB
`
`v.
`
`Xenophon Zorba
`
`Ne. CV106001037
`
`Superior Court of Connecticut.
`
`August 9, 20B
`
`MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
`
`Newson, John M., J.
`
`l.. Background
`
`This is a breach of contract action for taiiure to repay a credit card debt. The Plaintiff, American Express Bank, FSB, is
`a federaliy charged thrift institution With a principal place of business located at 4315 South West, Salt Lake City, Utah. The
`defendant, Zenophon Zorba, is a natural person presently residing in the town of Willington, Connecticut, and was the owner
`and president of the former Zenny‘s Restaurant, a Connecticut corporation, which was located at 625 Middle Turnpike in
`Storrs, Connecticut. At some point on or before March 2005, the defendant applied for and received a credit card from the
`plaintiff issued under account it XXXXXXXXXX»02006. The account was in the name of both the plaintiff and Zenny's
`Restaurant. The defendant received and used the credit card for purposes related to Zenny's Restaurant until about November
`2009. Prior to and including November 2009, however, the defendant had not been making the required minimum payments
`on the balance outstanding on the account. In about November 2009, the plaintiff suspended the account and issued a fonnai
`demand for payment upon the defendant. The defendant having failed to make payment in full pursuant to the plaintiffs
`demand, the piaintiff commenced the present action for collection on January 19, 2010, claiming a balance of SE7, 087.94
`was past due and owing.
`
`The matter was tried before the court on June 2:, 20l2. The plaintiff established that the account in question was
`estabiished in the name of the plaintiff and Zenny's Restaurant and that they had performed their obligation under the
`agreement by making payment on behalf of the defendant to the various vendors who had accepted use of the credit card. The
`defendant admitted to being the president of Kenny's, to applying for the credit account with the plaintiff, to being the person
`who received the various credit cards and billing statements sent by the plaintiff over the years, to being the only person who
`used the credit card to make purchases, and stated that he could not dispute the balance the piaintiff claimed was due and
`owing, The defendant only disputed that he was personally liable for the charges made on the account, because he claimed
`that he had applied for and been issued the card in the name of chny's Restaurant and that he never signed any agreement to
`be personally liable.
`
`The plaintiff presented the testimony of Edward Garibedian, custodian and manager in the global collections
`department of American Express, who testified that American Express smatl business credit cards are issued based on the
`credit worthiness of the applicant, not the business, and that it is the applicant's personai information and social security
`number that are collected in order to perform the necessary background credit checks before the card is issued. Mr.
`Garibedain also testified to the fact that the standard Business Credit Card Agreement is issued with every small business
`credit card. The first few sentences on the first page of the Business Credit Card Agreement say:
`
`Welcome to American Express Cardmernbership
`
`This document and the accompanying supplementts) constitute your agreement When you keep, sign or use the Business
`Card issued to you (inc_luding__any renewaior replacement Business Cards. or you use the account associated with this
`Agreement (your " Card Account"), you agree to the terms of this Agreement. The words " you, " " your" and ” yours" mean
`the person named on the Business Card and/or, where applicable, the Company. You have received this Business Card at the
`request of the Company for use in connection with the Card Account. You will be calied a ” Business Cardmember” or "
`Additional Cardmember. " 7hr: Basic Cardmember is the authorizing ofiicer ofthe Campaign who authorized as to issue the
`Business Card to you by signing the Company's Application flrr the Cardxtccomu.
`
`(Emphasis added.) (Plaintiffs Exhibit 2, Business Credit Card Agreement.) The Agreement goes on to say:
`
`Promise to Pay
`
`

`

`You promise to pay all Charges. including charges incurred by Additional Cardmcmbers, on your account
`
`Status of and Responsibility for Basic and Additional Cardmemhers
`
`. The Company and the Basic Cnrcfinember are responsible for all are ofrhe Card Account by the Basic Cnrdmember and
`Additional Cardmembers
`
`(Emphasis added.) (Exhibit 2.). The defendant admitted during trial to receiving some " other paperwork" with his credit
`cards, but could not remember if he had ever read them.
`
`iI. Law and Discussion
`
`" The elements of a breach of contract action are well established: the formation of an agreement, performance by one
`party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages." (Quotation marks omitted.) Rosario v.
`it’lrn'cnrdo.
`82
`Conn.App. 396, 4i 1, 884 A.2d 893 (2004). " The existence ot‘a contract is a question of fact to be determined by the trier on
`the basis of all the evidence." Farrier v. M’wingion Group, Inc, 30 Conn.App. 505, 509, 620 A.2d 1321, cert. denied, 225
`Conn. 922, 625 A.2d 823 (1993). " [Ifn order to form a binding and enforceabie contract, there must exist an offer and an
`acceptance based on a mutual understanding by the parties
`The mutual understanding must manifest itscif by a mutual
`assent between the parties." Housing Authority v. Dalian/1e,
`l 12 Conn.App. 355, 370, 962 A.2d 904 (2009). " In the case of
`a bilateral contract acceptance of the offer need not be express but may be shown by any words or acts which indicate which
`indicate the offeree's assent to the proposed bargain." (Quotation marks omitted.) RaflCo. v. Mar/Jig), 110 Conn, 234, 239.
`147 A. 709 (1929). " In the absence of a statute requiring a signature
`parties may become bound by the terms of a contract,
`even though they do not sign it, where their assent is otherwise indicated, such as by acceptance of benefits under the
`contract." .S'c/nmrzchild v. Martin,
`191 Conn. 316, 321-22, 464 A.2d 774 (1983). " A party cannot recover on a contract
`unless he has fully performed his obligations under it, has tendered performance or has some legai excuse for not
`performing," Revue}: v. Staiiman Poultry Farms, Inc.
`i65 Conn. 135, 149, 328 A.2d 711 (i973). " As a generai rule, in
`awarding damages upon a breach of contract, the prevailing party is entitled to compensation which wilt piacc him in the
`same position he would have been in bad the contract been properly performed
`Such damages are measured as of the date
`of the breach," (Citations omitted.) Sperry v. Mater, 3 Conn.App. 692, 695~96, 491 A.2d l 115 (1985).
`
`in the present case, the plaintiff sent, at the defendant’s reqaest, a credit card aiong with a copy of the written terms
`upon which that credit could be used by the defendant, which constituted the offer, and the defendant thereafter used the
`credit card for many years and incurred charges thereon. His acceptance and use of the benefits of the credit card constituted
`his acceptance of the terms set forth in the Business Card Credit Agreement. Schwarzehild v.
`:‘lt’artr‘n,
`E91 Conn. Supra,
`32 [-22, The Business Card Credit Agreement states in unambiguous language that the defendant, as a " Basic Cardmember, "
`because he was the officer of the company who authorized the credit card, or as a " Business Cardmember" or " Additional
`Cardmember, " because he was named on the account, was personaily liable for charges made on the account. (Exhibit 2.)
`The piaintift" performed its obiigations under the contract by making payment on behalf of the defendant to the various
`vendors that accepted the credit card, however, the defendant has breached his obligation by failing, refusing or negieeting to
`repay the plaintiff. Rosnro v. Mnscardo, supra, 82 Conn.App. 4i 1.
`
`iil. Conclusion
`
`The Court finds that the plaintiff has sustained its harden of proof as to the allegations in the complaint. Judgment
`enters for the plaintiff against the defendant, Zenophon Zorba, in the amount of 517, 087.94, together with costs.
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAWN666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)96774190'jurisNo.421741.
`
`

`

`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BANK&ASSOCIATESLLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GienbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)9674190'JurisNo.421741
`
`Citibank (South Dakota) NA.
`
`v.
`
`Gloria F. Kilherg
`
`CV 04-049070]
`
`Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven
`
`December 21, 2005
`
`Caption Date: December 20, 2005
`
`Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Devlin, Robert J., J.
`
`Opinion Titic: MEMORANDUM OF DECISEON RE MOTiON FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (it l06)
`
`This is a debt collection action wherein the plaintiff, Citibank (South Dakota) NA. ("Citibank"), seeks the recovery of
`allegedly unpaid credit card bills from the defendant Gloria F. Kilberg.
`in the present motion, Citibank has moved for
`summary judgment asserting that there are no genuine issues of fact and that it is entitled to judgment in the amount of
`$12,025.44, plus costs. The defendant objects to the motion on two grounds. First, that the so-callcd account stated theory
`relied upon by Citibank is not recognized in Connecticut. Second, that there are genuine issues of fact as to the amount due.
`For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is granted.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The standards for granting summaryjudgment in Connecticut are weli estabiished. Summary judgment is appropriate
`if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of tow. Practice Book §i7-49. In deciding a motion for summary judgment,
`the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Appleton v. Board of Education,
`254 Conn. 205, 209 (2000).
`in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of
`material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988).
`
`The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact
`which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle SUCII party to judgment as a matter of law, Appfeton v. Board of
`Education, supra, 254 Conn. 209. The existence of a genuine issue of materiai fact must be demonstrated by counter-
`affidavits and concrete evidence. Pion v. Southern New England Telephone, 44 Conn.App. 657, 663 {i997}. A party's
`coneiusory statements, in the affidavit and elsewhere, may not constitute evidence sufficient to cstabiish the existence of
`disputed material facts. Gupta v. New Britain General Hospimf, 239 Conn. 574, 583 (1996). Moreover, a party opposing
`summary judgment must substantiate its adverse eiaim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material feet together with
`the evidence disciosing the existence of such an issue. Mafjixcci v. Royal Park, Ltd Partnership, 243 Conn. 552, 554-55
`( l998). it is not enough, however, for the opposing party to assert the existence ol'such a dispute; mere assertions of fact are
`insufficient to establish the existence of a material tact, 1d.
`
`in the present case, Citibank has supported its motion for summary judgment with an affidavit of Amanda Carter, its
`empioyee. The affidavit states in pertinent part that: (l) Citibank opened an account and extended credit to the defendant to
`pay for goods and Services charged to the account; (2) Citibank, on a monthly basis, sent defendant full and true accounts of
`defendant's transactions with Citibank; (3) the defendant neither disputed the validity of the baiance owed nor notified
`Citibank of any ciaims, defenses, offsets or counterclaims to the balance due; (4') the defendant Failed to pay the minimum
`amount due on the account; and (5) the balance due is $12,025.44. Attached to the affidavit are copies of each monthly
`S‘s.me 5F“! 1.0. the defendant. from spacing stiltsassosnlin January 2.0.0.210 April .13. 200.5...
`_
`_
`
`in support of its motion, Citibank asserts that as a National Association it is governed by federai statutes lnciuding the
`Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. §1666 et seq. That statute protects consumers from inaccurate and unfair billing and credit
`card practices by ailowing consumers a 60-day period after biliing to send written notice of a billing error. 15 U.S.C. §§1666-
`1666j. Citibank's affidavit states that no written complaian of biiling errors were received From the defendant.
`
`Citibank also asserts that based on the monthiy statements sent to defendant and a lack of any complaint or objection,
`an account stated was created between the parties. Relying principally on New York law, Citibank argues that the correctness
`of the balance due in the present case is based a so-called account stated theory. See Citibank NA. v. Jones, 708 N.Y.S.2d
`517, 5i8 (AD. 3 Dept. 2000) ("an account stated is an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions
`
`

`

`between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and balance due").
`
`In opposition to Citibank‘s claims, the defendant asserts that the account slated theory has not been recognized in
`Connecticut and should not be applied in this case.
`in addition, the defendant has submitted a counter-affidavit that in
`relevant part states:
`
`I have serious questions of fact as to how much i owe my Citibank Account in this case .
`in their suit, but l believe it to be much less.
`
`.
`
`. The plaintiff claims $12,025.44
`
`The concept of account stated has venerable roots in both New York and Connecticut. An account stated is an account
`
`balanced and rendered, with an assent to the balance express or implied, so that the demand is essentially the same as if a
`promissory note had been given for the balance. Intention In. Products v, REM. Electron Power, 37 N.Y.2d 155, 371
`N.Y.S.2cl 675, 678 (1975). In Newbm-ger-A/lorru' Co. v. Tolcott, 219 NY. 505, 512, 114 NE. 846, 848 (1916), Judge
`Cardozo wrote "the very meaning of an account stated is that the parties have come together and agreed upon the balance of
`indebtedness insimul computassent, so that an action to recover the balance as upon an implied promise of payment may
`thenceforth be maintained."
`
`In Connecticut, an account stated has been recognized for over one hundred years. See Zocarr'no v. Pollard, 49 Conn.
`36, 38 (l870). ("An account stated is an agreement between persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount
`due in respect to such transactions and promising payment.")
`
`As in New York, account stated is not conclusive evidence of a balance due but rather establishes the balance
`presumptively. Nichols v. Alsop, 6 Conn. 477 (1827), General Petrolean Products, Inc. v. Merchants Trust Co, E15 Conn.
`50, 56 (1932).
`
`In the present case, Citibank's affidavit demonstrates that monthly account statements were sent to the defendant over
`a period of thirtyunine months and no written complaints about the balance were made. The defendant's counter affidavit
`merely contains her opinion that she owes less than claimed, but does not state any supporting facts.
`
`On the present record, Citibank has established an unpaid account balance of $2,025.44. The plaintiffs affidavit is
`insufficient to raise a genuine issuo of material fact as to that balance. Accordingly, Citibank is entitled to summary
`judgment.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in the amount of $12,025.44 plus costs is
`granted.
`
`So Ordered at New Haven, Connecticut this 20th day of December 2005.
`
`Devlin, .l.
`
`
`
`MARKBANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad'Stamford,CT06906'Tel:(203)9637-1190'jurisNo.421?41
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`MARK
`
`SANK&ASSOCIATES.LLCATTORNEYSATLAW666GlenbrookRoad‘Stamford,CT06906'Tel:{203)9611190'jurisNo.421741
`
`
`
`
`
`Cityhanlt (South Dakota). NA.
`
`v.
`
`Bruce Walt
`
`Nu. CVD9SUISIISI
`
`No. “2468
`
`Superior Court ofConnecticut
`
`August 18. 2010
`
`Caption Date: August 17, 20“)
`
`Judicial District of New London at New London
`
`Judge (with first initiui, no space for Suilivan, Dorsey, and Walsh):Murtin, Robert A., J.
`
`MEMORANDUM OIP DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#1031
`
`Martin, J.
`
`FACTS
`
`On September 2, 2009, the plaintiff, Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., filed a complaint against the defendant, Bruce R.
`Watt, seeking to coliect a credit card balance due in the amount of $l2, 231.3 I. 'i"he defendant tiied an answer on November
`It), 2009, in which he denied failing to make payments for the credit extended by the plaintiff, and further denied the amount
`of the total balance due. On January 27, 20M),
`the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that no
`genuine issue of material fact exists, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. in support of its motion, the
`plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law, the aliidavits of Julie Solomon. the plaintiffs attorney, and Mary E. (from, an
`authorized agent for the piaintill‘s credit accounts, and copies of monthly billing statements of the defendant's account. The
`defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2010, accompanied by a
`memorandum of law in opposition. On Aprii 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a reply memorandum. The defendant filed a reply
`memorandum on April 16, 2010, On May i3, ZOEO, the plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum in further support of its
`motion.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`"Practice Book §i7~49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any
`other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
`judgment as a matter of law." Provcncher v. Enficld, 284 Conn. 772, 790, 936 A.2d 625 (2007). "In seeking summary
`judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact. The courts are in entire
`agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all
`the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. The
`courts hold the movant to a strict standard. To satisfy his burden the movunt must make a showing that it is quite clear what
`the truth is, and that excludes any rcai doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact... As the burden of proof
`is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent...
`
`"The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some
`disputed factnai
`issue... The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of such issues but the evidence thus
`presented, if otherwise sufficient, is not rcbuttcd by'tlic bald statement that an issue of fa'dt'does 'cx'ist..'."l‘o oppose a motion
`for summary judgment sucoessfuiiy, the nonmovant must recite specific facts... which contradict those stated in the movant‘s
`affidavits and documents... The opposing party to a motion