Citibank, N.A. v. Narvaez

• Citation: 155 N.Y.S.3d 686,73 Misc.3d 709
• Decision Date: 10 September 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. CV-002835-20/RI
• Parties: CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Jennifer NARVAEZ, Defendant.
• Court: New York Civil Court

73 Misc.3d 709
155 N.Y.S.3d 686

CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff,
v.
Jennifer NARVAEZ, Defendant.

Index No. CV-002835-20/RI

Civil Court, City of New York, Richmond County.

Decided on September 10, 2021

For Plaintiff: Tenaglia & Hunt

Defendant: Pro Se

Robert J. Helbock Jr., J.

73 Misc.3d 710

The decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is as follows:

Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter "Plaintiff") commenced this action against defendant Jennifer Narvaez (hereinafter "Defendant") with a summons and complaint dated September 1, 2020, alleging various cause of action relating to a breach of a credit card agreement between the parties. Defendant previously filed an in-person answer with the Court on November 4, 2020 and issue was joined.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment on May 10, 2021 with an initial return date of June 9, 2021, and the Defendant was referred to CLARO for legal assistance. A second rescheduling order

155 N.Y.S.3d 687

was issued on July 14, 2021, directing the parties to appear in person on August 25, 2021. Prior to the final return date, Defendant submitted an unsworn, unsigned, and undated affirmation in opposition.¹ The parties appeared before the Court on August 25, 2021, and the motion was deemed submitted.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is rejected on procedural grounds.

The Plaintiff's moving papers, specifically the Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, and Memorandum of Law were purportedly signed by Plaintiff's attorney with a typed "/s/Jason Kim, Esq./s/" (the "/s/ signature") in lieu of a handwritten or "wet" signature. The motion papers were filed in person with the Court rather than electronically through the Court's electronic document delivery system ("EDDS").

73 Misc.3d 711

The Court notified Plaintiff's counsel that the motion papers were not properly signed. However, the attorney appearing before the Court was not the same attorney who submitted the motion papers. Therefore, Plaintiff could not "promptly correct" the signature after being notified by the Court pursuant to the Court Rules ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a(a) ). After the Court inquired how counsel wanted to proceed, (i.e. withdraw the motion, request adjournment, or other relief), counsel requested that the motion be deemed submitted for decision.

Upon consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the "s/ signature" offered by the Plaintiff's attorney is insufficient to qualify as an e-signature.

Section 130-1.1a of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge directs:

"(a) Every pleading, written motion, and other paper, served on another party or filed or submitted to the Court shall be signed by an attorney , or by a party if the party is not represented by an attorney, with the name of the attorney or party clearly printed or typed directly below the signature. Absent good cause shown, the court shall strike any unsigned paper if the omission of the signature is not corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party. [Emphasis added ]

(b) By signing a paper, an attorney or party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, the information and belief, formed after inquiry reasonable under the circumstances

(1) the presentation of the paper or the contentions therein are not frivolous as defined in section 130-1.1(c) of this Subpart; and

(2) where the paper is an initiating pleading:(i) the matter was not obtained through illegal conduct, or that if it was, the attorney

...