Paul v. Coleman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paul v. Coleman

236 A.D.2d 268, 654 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1271

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 268 (Paul v. Coleman) 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

Paul v. Coleman, 236 A.D.2d 268, 654 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered October 16, 1995, which [269]*269granted plaintiifFs motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of granting judgment on the cause of action for an account stated and dismissing defendant’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to compel disclosure, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs motion with respect to the cause of action for an account stated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims were properly dismissed as insufficiently pleaded and factually unsupported. However, with respect to plaintiffs cause of action for an account stated, there was sufficient evidence in the record consisting, in part, of plaintiffs own letters to defendant during 1992 and 1994 and plaintiffs principal’s admission that he spoke with defendant while in the hospital, to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant made timely oral objection to the reasonableness of amounts billed. In any event, the amounts billed were set forth in summary fashion, unsupported by any evidence of plaintiffs hourly rate or the billable hours spent on the items listed (see, Diamond & Golomb v D'Arc, 140 AD2d 183; Scheichet & Davis v Steinger, 183 AD2d 479). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered October 16, 1995, which [269]*269granted plaintiifFs motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of granting judgment on the cause of action for an account stated and dismissing defendant’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to compel disclosure, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs motion with respect to the cause of action for an account stated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims were properly dismissed as insufficiently pleaded and factually unsupported. However, with respect to plaintiffs cause of action for an account stated, there was sufficient evidence in the record consisting, in part, of plaintiffs own letters to defendant during 1992 and 1994 and plaintiffs principal’s admission that he spoke with defendant while in the hospital, to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant made timely oral objection to the reasonableness of amounts billed. In any event, the amounts billed were set forth in summary fashion, unsupported by any evidence of plaintiffs hourly rate or the billable hours spent on the items listed (see, Diamond & Golomb v D'Arc, 140 AD2d 183; Scheichet & Davis v Steinger, 183 AD2d 479). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 268, 654 N.Y.S.2d 295, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-coleman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack