I.S. Design, Inc. v. Planned Management Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

I.S. Design, Inc. v. Planned Management Construction Corp.

243 A.D.2d 425, 663 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10834

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 30, 1997·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 8, 1996, as supplemented by the order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about November 4, 1996, [426] which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment in the sum of $14,600 on its causes of action for account stated and unjust enrichment and severed its remaining claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff upon proof that it ordered and paid for a custom-built cabinet in good faith upon defendant’s request and to assist defendant in meeting its contractual obligation. Plaintiff reasonably expected to be reimbursed the amount that defendant’s contract designated was the fair value of the cabinet (see, Geraldi v Melamid, 212 AD2d 575, 576). Further, plaintiff’s proof that defendant received and retained its bills and demands for reimbursement for well over a year without objection was sufficient to establish a cause of action for account stated (see, Shea & Gould v Burr, 194 AD2d 369).

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered October 8, 1996, as supplemented by the order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about November 4, 1996, [426] which, inter alia, granted plaintiff summary judgment in the sum of $14,600 on its causes of action for account stated and unjust enrichment and severed its remaining claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff upon proof that it ordered and paid for a custom-built cabinet in good faith upon defendant’s request and to assist defendant in meeting its contractual obligation. Plaintiff reasonably expected to be reimbursed the amount that defendant’s contract designated was the fair value of the cabinet (see, Geraldi v Melamid, 212 AD2d 575, 576). Further, plaintiff’s proof that defendant received and retained its bills and demands for reimbursement for well over a year without objection was sufficient to establish a cause of action for account stated (see, Shea & Gould v Burr, 194 AD2d 369).

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

I.S. Design, Inc. v. Planned Management Construction Corp., 243 A.D.2d 425, 663 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

243 A.D.2d 425 (I.S. Design, Inc. v. Planned Management Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related