Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales Corp.

223 A.D.2d 618, 637 N.Y.S.2d 315

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 618 (Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales 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.

Bluebook

Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales Corp., 223 A.D.2d 618, 637 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated November 14, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In its opposition papers, the defendant submitted evidence of an oral objection to the account rendered, which is sufficient on a motion for summary judgment to rebut any inference of an implied agreement to pay the stated amount (see, Sandvoss v Dunkelberger, 112 AD2d 278, 279). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated November 14, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. In its opposition papers, the defendant submitted evidence of an oral objection to the account rendered, which is sufficient on a motion for summary judgment to rebut any inference of an implied agreement to pay the stated amount (see, Sandvoss v Dunkelberger, 112 AD2d 278, 279). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 618, 637 N.Y.S.2d 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dynaforce-v-bruno-cmc-truck-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack