Fernandez v. GM Fin.

Fernandez v GM Fin. (

)



[*1]
<table align="center">
<tbody><tr>
<td align="center"><b>Fernandez v GM Fin.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">

 [

]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Decided on April 17, 2025</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Appellate Term, First Department</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br><br>

Decided on April 17, 2025
<br><div></div>SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST
DEPARTMENT

<br>PRESENT: Hagler, P.J., Brigantti, Tisch, JJ.



<br>570100/25

<br><br><div><b>Segundo Fernandez,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
<br><br>against<br><br>GM Financial,
Defendant-Appellant.</b></div><br><br>




<p>Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx
County (Andrea R. Krugman, J.), dated August 5, 2024, which denied its motion for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p>




<p><strong>Per Curiam.</strong></p>
<p>Order (Andrea R. Krugman, J.), dated August 5, 2024, reversed, without costs,
motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment
accordingly.</p>
<p>Civil Court should have granted defendant's unopposed motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant's submission in support of the motion
established, prima facie, that the parties entered into a motor vehicle lease extension
agreement that required plaintiff to make monthly payments by a date certain, and that
plaintiff repeatedly failed to make timely payment pursuant to the agreement.
Furthermore, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant breached any provision of the lease
agreement. Accordingly, the summary judgment record established that plaintiff, not
defendant, breached the agreement. </p>
<p>Insofar as plaintiff alleged that defendant wrongfully reported his default under the
lease to consumer reporting agencies, such claims are preempted by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which preempts such state law claims "relating to the responsibilities of
persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies" (15 USC § 1681t
[b] [1] [F]; <i>see Macpherson v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.</i>, 

[2d Cir 2011], <i>cert denied </i>

 [2012]; <i>see also Manes v JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A.,</i> 

, 

 [SD NY Mar 7,
2022,No. 20-CV-11059 (VEC)]).</p>
<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p>
I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 17, 2025


<br><br><div>



</div>