Bay Ridge Lumber Co. v. Summit Renovation Corp.
This text of 271 A.D.2d 559 (Bay Ridge Lumber Co. v. Summit Renovation Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
—In an action to re[560]*560cover damages for breach of contract and for an account stated, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), entered January 7, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $48,053.04.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In 1991 the defendant, a general contractor, ordered various materials from the plaintiff for use in its public and private construction projects around New York City. The agreed-upon price for the materials was $102,509, of which the defendant ultimately paid the plaintiff $42,758. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover the remaining $59,751, and the defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages in the amount of $467,400, alleging that the plaintiff delivered defective materials and delayed the delivery of other materials.
The plaintiff established its entitlement to recover the principal sum of $48,053, through the invoices and signed receipts that it submitted at trial. Because the defendant did not object to the invoices it received within a reasonable period of time, its retention of them without objection gave rise to an enforceable account stated (see, e.g., Peterson v IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 172 AD2d 165, 166; Chemical Bank v Kaufman, 142 AD2d 526, 527; Marino v Watkins, 112 AD2d 511; Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v Neuman, 93 AD2d 745). Moreover, the trial court correctly found that the defendant failed to prove its counterclaim (see, e.g., Pronti v DML of Elmira, 103 AD2d 916). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
271 A.D.2d 559, 706 N.Y.S.2d 155, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-ridge-lumber-co-v-summit-renovation-corp-nyappdiv-2000.