Bank of America, N.A., Plaintiff(s), v. Daniel N Richards, Defendant(s). (2026)

The following papers were read on Defendant's Motion to DISMISS,

Defendant's Notice of Motion and Affirmation 1

Plaintiff's Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits 2

Plaintiff commenced this consumer credit proceeding by summons and complaint on or about January 6, 2026, seeking to recover an unpaid balance in the amount of $6,275.98 in connection with a credit card allegedly issued to defendant Daniel N Richards. Now, defendant moves pre-answer, pursuant to CPLR 3211, seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the action.

Defendant argues in his motion that the instant complaint should be dismissed to the extent that plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts establishing its standing to bring this action, relying instead on conclusory allegations of ownership of the alleged account. Defendant asserts that plaintiff operates a securitization structure in which credit card accounts are routinely sold, transferred, and pooled into separate legal entities, with plaintiff acting simultaneously as originator, servicer, sponsor, and seller. As a result, defendant contends that ownership of any given account may rest with one of these alternate entities rather than with plaintiff itself. Defendant further argues that plaintiff has not demonstrated in its pleading that it currently owns the alleged account at issue or that the account was not transferred prior to commencement of this action. Moreover, defendant asserts that the complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(j), insofar as plaintiff has not adequately disclosed the capacity in which it brings the action or produced the necessary documentation to establish that capacity.

Plaintiff, in its opposition, asserts that it has sufficiently plead to be the original creditor with respect to the account at issue. Furthermore, plaintiff contends that courts have previously held that the securitization of debt does not negate plaintiff's standing to enforce an obligation to repay a debt, and rather, the burden is on defendant to sufficiently demonstrate that the specific debt at issue was assigned to another entity. Additionally, plaintiff asserts that the summons and complaint satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(j). In support of its opposition, plaintiff annexes, inter alia, account statements and an Affidavit of Facts by Original Creditor authored by Allison Woodside, officer for plaintiff.

When standing is the basis of a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need not absolutely prove that standing exists in order to defeat the motion. Rather, the plaintiff need merely raise a question of fact as to the issue (DLJ Mtge. Capital v Mahadeo, 166 AD3d 512 [1st Dept 2018]).

Here, plaintiff alleges in its pleading that it is the original creditor of the debt allegedly owed by defendant. Defendant offers no evidence to sufficiently rebut plaintiff's claim of ownership, relying instead on speculative assertions regarding plaintiff's securitization structure that are unsupported by any documentation. As plaintiff alleges that it is the original creditor in this matter, it has adequately pled standing, and defendant has failed to affirmatively refute that allegation.

CPLR 3016(j) requires that in an action arising out of a consumer credit transaction where the account was a revolving credit account, the contract or the charge-off statement must be attached to the complaint. Furthermore, the complaint must set forth the name of the original creditor; the last four digits of the account number on the most recent monthly statement; the date and amount of the last payment; and if the complaint contains an account stated cause of action, the date which the final statement of account was provided; the total amount due as of charge off, inclusive of interest accrued and other fees; the account balance printed on the most recent monthly statement; and whether plaintiff is the original creditor.

Here, plaintiff asserts in its complaint that it is the original creditor; that the total amount due is $6,275.98, inclusive of all fees and interest assessed since charge-off; that defendant's last payment was made on November 7, 2024 in the amount of $482.00; that monthly periodic statements were provided to defendant and retained without objection; that the last statement, dated June 30, 2025, reflected an account number ending in 1464 with a balance of $5,446.21; and that the account number was subsequently updated and now ends in 7207. The complaint further includes a charge-off statement reflecting the updated account number ending in 7207 and a balance owed of $6,275.98. Based on these allegations and supporting documentation, the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the pleading requirements governing consumer credit transactions.

Moreover, contrary to defendant's assertions, plaintiff's pleadings are more than adequate to withstand this pre-answer motion to dismiss. Defendant's challenge to plaintiff's ownership of the debt rests solely on speculation regarding plaintiff's securitization practices, unsupported by any documentary evidence. A motion to dismiss cannot be sustained on conjecture, nor on hypothetical alternate ownership theories that lack factual grounding. At this stage, plaintiff's sworn allegation that it is the original creditor, combined with the documentary exhibits attached to the complaint, establishes a prima facie showing of standing. Defendant has failed to present any evidence or particularized factual allegations that would call plaintiff's ownership into question. As such, defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate any defect warranting dismissal under CPLR 3211.

To the extent defendant seeks to probe the internal structure of plaintiff's securitization processes, those issues require discovery and cannot serve as a basis for dismissal at the pleading stage. Whether the right to recover lies with plaintiff or with another entity is a matter appropriately explored through disclosure and, if necessary, resolved at summary judgment or trial, not through a pre-answer motion grounded in speculation. Accordingly, defendant's motion is denied in its entirety. However, the court directs the parties to exchange discovery concerning ownership and securitization issues prior to their next scheduled appearance.

All other arguments the court could discern have been considered and need not be addressed given the findings above.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that, defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days of the date of this order herein; and it is further

ORDERED that, plaintiff to provide the following documents to defendant on or before August 18, 2026:

(1) The identity of the original creditor and account number along with books and records relating to defendant's account, including copies of the credit card agreement(s);

(2) Account statements showing charges and payments made, including a statement showing the last payment made and the final charge-off amount; and

(3) Proof of assignment of defendant's account, or any other documents establishing the chain of custody of defendant's account; and it is further

ORDERED that, defendant provide the following documents to plaintiff on or before October 2, 2026:

(4) Any documents pertaining to any potential defenses, particularly proof of payment, police reports and correspondence relevant to any potential fraud or identity theft claims; and

(5) Any documents establishing a financial hardship (if applicable); and it is further

ORDERED that, this matter is adjourned to December 23, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. for a compliance trial conference in Room 504, 851 Grand Concourse Bronx, New York 10451.

The failure of any party to comply with the directives contained in this order, or the failure of any party to appear on the above date, may result in the Court issuing an order adversely affecting the interests of the non-compliant or defaulting party. Such an order may include preclusion of evidence at trial; striking the pleadings; dismissal of the complaint upon plaintiff's default; or a judgment for plaintiff upon defendant's default.

This constitutes the order of the Court.

July 13, 2026

HON. TAISHA L. CHAMBERS, A.J.S.C.

Taisha L. Chambers, J.