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

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 130 (M&R Construction Corp. v. IDI Construction Co.) 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

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

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]*131dant’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]*131dant’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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 130, 771 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mr-construction-corp-v-idi-construction-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack