The plaintiff did not bring any other evidence that could have supported his version regarding the blocking of the bank account, despite the fact that in his interrogation Mr. Timothy Vishnevsky testified that the defendant had given the plaintiff a letter in this regard (p. 13 of the transcript, paras. 18-20), and here too this is in his obligation.
- On the other hand, the defendant's version that the bank account was not blocked was supported by the testimony of H.H. Anna Guttin and Michaela Horn, and was not contradicted in any way.
Ms. Anna Gutin, the deputy manager of the bank's branch at the time, adhered to this version and explained that the bank account only added a note stating that approval of any activity in the bank account was required, and this was for the purpose of supervision only:
"I didn't block an account, I blocked a credit card... To prevent account emptying... I put an action, a warning sign, that every action in the account requires approval. It's not a block. This means that the customer can't reach another hairdresser who won't notice, the lender will talk and let him empty the account."
(p. 49 of the transcript, paras. 8-15. See also the interrogation of Ms. Michaela Horn - p. 57 of the transcript, paras. 28, 31-32).
Additional support for the defendant's version can be found in the bank account statements that were attached to the file presented on his behalf, as stated above.
- In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff did not prove the claim that the defendant blocked the bank account he owned.
I determine, as a factual finding, that the bank account continued to operate as usual even after April 12, 2022.
Therefore, the result is that the plaintiff's petition should be dismissed in this regard.
Credit Card Cancellation
- There is no dispute between the parties that the defendant canceled the credit card that was in the plaintiff's possession, but the parties disagreed on the question of whether the defendant was entitled to do so or not.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant unlawfully canceled the credit card in his possession, and his refusal to continue to provide him with service in an existing account is unreasonable and contrary to section 2(a) of the Banking Law (Terms of Service).