Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COHEN TAUBER SPIEVAK & WAGNER, LLP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeffrey ALNWICK, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered September 22, 2005, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $210,036.28 while severing and dismissing defendants' counterclaims for the period prior to September 15, 2003; and order, same court and Justice, entered April 18, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants' motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 6, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for an account stated, and defendants failed to establish the existence of admissible evidence that would raise genuine issues of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ). Defendants received plaintiff's invoices from 2000 through September 15, 2003 without objection, and made partial payments thereon (see Shea & Gould v. Burr, 194 A.D.2d 369, 598 N.Y.S.2d 261 [1993] ). Their “bald conclusory allegations of fraud, mistake, and other equitable considerations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” on an account stated (Liddle, O'Connor, Finkelstein & Robinson v. Koppelman, 215 A.D.2d 204, 626 N.Y.S.2d 173 [1995] ). Furthermore, it is “not necessary to establish the reasonableness of the fee since the client's act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness” (O'Connell & Aronowitz v. Gullo, 229 A.D.2d 637, 638, 644 N.Y.S.2d 870 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 803, 653 N.Y.S.2d 280, 675 N.E.2d 1233 [1996] ).
Renewal was properly denied because defendants failed to allege new facts or explain why the documents upon which their claims were based had not been included in the prior motion. We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 31, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)