Speciner v. Parr

252 A.D.2d 554, 675 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8398
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 554 (Speciner v. Parr) 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
Speciner v. Parr, 252 A.D.2d 554, 675 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, based upon an account stated, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered July 29, 1997, which, upon the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his second cause of action based [555]*555upon an account stated, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sum of $149,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

As the Supreme Court properly found, the unrebutted proof in the record establishes that the plaintiff rendered the defendants extensive legal services over many years for which the defendants agreed to pay a minimum of $500,000, that several invoices sent by the plaintiff to the defendants were never questioned by the defendants, and that the defendants paid approximately $350,500 of the $500,000 billed before they abruptly discontinued their payments on the ground that they did not owe the plaintiff any money. By their silence and partial payments, the defendants expressed their agreement that the bills sent to them by the plaintiff were correct and would be paid (see, e.g., Coudert Bros. v Finalco Group, 176 AD2d 622; Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer & Sommer, 70 AD2d 429, 433). Accordingly, and in view of the defendants’ failure to raise any genuine triable issue of fact, the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was properly granted (see, e.g., Dreyer & Traub v Rubinstein, 191 AD2d 236, 237; Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v Daelen Corp., 59 AJD2d 375, 377-378). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Elsa Zegelstein Revocable Living Trust v. Nanto MK Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 34011(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
PRA III, LLC v. Gonzalez
54 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 554, 675 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speciner-v-parr-nyappdiv-1998.