M&R Construction Corp. v. IDI Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M&R Construction Corp. v. IDI Construction Co.

4 A.D.3d 130, 771 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1235

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about October 1, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its tenth cause of action, for an account stated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated. Defen[131] dant’s conclusory affidavit in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs statement of account was in fact disputed by defendant (see Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355 [2001]; Ruskin, Moscou, Evans & Faltischek v FGH Realty Credit Corp., 228 AD2d 294 [1996]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, 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 on or about October 1, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its tenth cause of action, for an account stated, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated. Defen[131] dant’s conclusory affidavit in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiffs statement of account was in fact disputed by defendant (see Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355 [2001]; Ruskin, Moscou, Evans & Faltischek v FGH Realty Credit Corp., 228 AD2d 294 [1996]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

M&R Construction Corp. v. IDI Construction Co., 4 A.D.3d 130, 771 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

4 A.D.3d 130 (M&R Construction Corp. v. IDI Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related