Goodman v. Lieberman

226 A.D.2d 343, 640 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover an accountant’s fee, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated March 7, 1995, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment on the first and fourth causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant has valid defenses to the promissory note in issue, including failure [344] of consideration (see, Lackmann Food Serv. v E & S Vending Co., 125 AD2d 366; Pascal v Tardera, 123 AD2d 752). Furthermore, the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the account stated cause of action, as the account stated was vague and cursory (see, Diamond & Golomb v D’Arc, 140 AD2d 183; Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Aberdeen Petroleum Corp., 46 AD2d 618), and there is a question of fact as to whether the defendant objected to the account. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Goodman v. Lieberman, 226 A.D.2d 343, 640 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

226 A.D.2d 343 (Goodman v. Lieberman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harold Levinson Associates, Inc. v. Sam's Surprise, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Yannelli, Zevin & Civardi v. Sakol
298 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Cafaro v. Squitieri
290 A.D.2d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)