ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON INVOICES SENT TO DEFENDANT FOR THE SOLAR PANELS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach of contract action was properly dismissed but plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on its account stated cause of action based upon the submission of invoices for $1.9 million. There was no executed agreement between plaintiff and defendant for the installation of solar panels. However, defendant did not object to the invoices for the solar panels:

Plaintiff attempted to raise “material questions of fact” with proof that it had already entered into an agreement to install one solar system at the complex, that defendants expressed interest in having plaintiff install the two additional systems, and that plaintiff purchased solar cells and performed other work in the expectation that it would do so … . These submissions did not, however, raise any question on the dispositive issue of whether the parties reached agreement on the material terms of a contract to install the additional systems … . …

We reach a different result with regard to plaintiff’s claim for an account stated, which is “an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and balance due, and may be implied from the retention of an account rendered for an unreasonable period of time without objection and from the surrounding circumstances” … . In the course of the unsuccessful negotiations over an agreement to install the two proposed systems, plaintiff purchased approximately $1.9 million worth of solar cells for one of the projects and, beginning in December 2011, periodically invoiced defendants for the purchase price and storage costs of the cells. The initial invoice stated that the solar cells were “purchased and held pursuant to agreement with” defendants, and noted that defendants’ representative had “acknowledge[d] receipt of [defendants’] inventory.” Plaintiff’s chairperson averred that defendants’ chief executive officer and a consultant had acknowledged receipt of the solar cells on behalf of defendants, and attached purchase documents for the solar cells bearing what plaintiff’s chairperson stated were the initials of those two individuals.

In response, defendants admitted that they had never objected to the invoices, which “is deemed acquiescence and warrants enforcement of the implied agreement to pay” … . Solartech Renewables, LLC v Techcity Props., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08739, Third Dept 12-20-18