KAYE SCHOLER FIERMAN HAYS HANDLER LLP v. RUSSELL CHEMICALS INC (1998)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn J.), entered September 3, 1997, which, in an action to recover attorneys' fees, denied the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action for account stated insofar as based on the invoices dated February through August 1993, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's letters dated June 29 and September 24, 1993 clearly dispute plaintiff's invoices of February through August 1993, and, accordingly, plaintiff's cause of action for account stated should have been dismissed insofar as based thereon (see, Abbott, Duncan & Wiener v. Ragusa, 214 A.D.2d 412, 625 N.Y.S.2d 178).   As for plaintiff's other invoices, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant objected thereto, raised by, inter alia, evidence of defendant's oral communications of dissatisfaction and plaintiff's failure to specify on the invoices the billable hours it devoted to the services rendered (see, Santora & McKay v. Mazzella, 182 A.D.2d 572, 582 N.Y.S.2d 431).   We agree with the IAS court that a grouping of contracts analysis results in application of New York law (see, Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F.Supp. 714, 719), and that the California statute requiring arbitration of attorney fee disputes (Cal. Business & Professions Code § 6200 et seq.), assuming it is not inapplicable under its own terms (see, § 6200[b][1] ), does not represent a countervailing foreign State policy so compelling as to displace otherwise applicable New York law (see, Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz & Drogin v. Richardson, 231 A.D.2d 1, 6, 660 N.Y.S.2d 410;  cf., Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 84 N.Y.2d 309, 318-319, 618 N.Y.S.2d 609, 642 N.E.2d 1065).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.