Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales Corp.

223 A.D.2d 618, 637 N.Y.S.2d 315
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

223 A.D.2d 618 (Dynaforce v. Bruno CMC Truck Sales Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hornell Brewing Co. v. High Grade Beverage
276 A.D.2d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
AFG Industries, Inc. v. Empire Glass Co.
226 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)