Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its cause of action for account stated by submitting evidence that it prepared and sent invoices to defendant in the ordinary course of its business; that defendant rendered partial payment, thus confirming that it received the invoices; and that defendant did not timely object to the invoices … .

In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated. Although the affidavit was submitted by defendant’s principal, it does not assert that defendant never received the invoices. Further, although defendant’s principal stated that defendant had already paid plaintiff the amounts due, she does not assert that defendant timely disputed those amounts. Accordingly, defendant is deemed to be bound by plaintiff’s rendering of the account … . Dape Consulting Inc. v Next Trucking Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02128, First Dept 4-10-25

Practice Point: Here defendant stated in an affidavit that it had already paid the amounts due. That claim did not raise a question of fact in this account stated action because defendant did not aver that it timely disputed the amounts due.​

… [T]his Court wants to make clear that an account stated is an independent cause of action that can be asserted simultaneously with a breach of contract claim and that an account stated claim should not be dismissed as duplicative of a breach of contract claim … . This case falls squarely within our well-established precedent that an attorney can be granted summary judgment on an account stated claim based on the defendant’s receipt and retention of a plaintiff law firm’s invoices seeking payment for professional services rendered, without objection within a reasonable time, even where there is a retainer agreement. As a result, the court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their account stated claims. Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP v Praeger, 2024 NY Slip Op 02657, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: In the First Department account-stated causes of action are not duplicative of breach-of-contract causes of action.

The court improperly engaged in a reasonableness analysis with regard to the invoices which were the subject of plaintiff’s account stated claim (see Matter of Lawrence, 24 NY3d 320, 343 [2014] [“an attorney or law firm may recover on a cause of action for an account stated with proof that a bill, even if unitemized, was issued to a client and held by the client without objection for an unreasonable period of time(,) (and) need not establish the reasonableness of the fee since the client’s act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness”] …; see L.E.K. Consulting LLC v Menlo Capital Group, LLC, 148 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2017). Jones Law Firm, P.C. v Peck, 2024 NY Slip Op 02502, First Dept 5-7-24

​Practice Point: The “reasonableness” of an invoice is not a concern in an account-stated action. The only question is whether the recipient of the invoice objected to the amount.

“An account stated is an agreement between parties, based upon their prior transactions, with respect to the correctness of the account items and the specific balance due” … . “The agreement may be express or implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account” … . “In order to establish a prima facie case to recover on an account stated, the plaintiff must establish that it submitted invoices and that the defendant received and retained the invoices without objection for an unreasonable period of time” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its causes of action to recover on an account stated, as the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that the plaintiff’s invoices for the amounts at issue were mailed to and received by the defendants … . In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its underwriting manager regarding the mailing of invoices. However, the affiant did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailings or of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed … . Alliance Natl. Ins. Co. v Hagler, 2023 NY Slip Op 04648, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: In order to prove an “account stated” cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the invoices were properly mailed to the the defendant, which includes proof of personal knowledge of the mailing procedure.

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that her motion seeking an award of prejudgment interest should have been granted. Supreme Court faulted plaintiff for waiting until 2020 to commence this action to recover monies owed as a result of a legal representation that ended in 2015 but, as prejudgment interest only compensates the judgment creditor for the loss of use of money he or she was owed and is not a penalty, the “responsibility for the delay [in bringing suit] should not be the controlling factor in deciding whether interest is to be computed” … . Rather, prejudgment interest in a breach of contract action is required by CPLR 5001, running “from the earliest ascertainable date on which the prevailing party’s cause of action existed ‘[or,] if that date cannot be ascertained with precision, . . . from the earliest time at which it may be said the cause of action accrued’ ” … . Supreme Court determined in the April 2022 order that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract accrued when she completed her legal services on May 23, 2015. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest running from that date…. O’Keefe v Barra, 2023 NY Slip Op 01829, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: This was a breach of contract action brought by an attorney against a former client for failure to pay the legal fees. The fact that the attorney stopped representing the client in 2015 and didn’t bring suit until 2020 was not a ground for the denial of prejudgment interest, which is required in breach of contract actions by CPLR 5001. The court noted that prejudgment interest is not a penalty.

Plaintiff law firm … established entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for an account stated with respect to its June invoices by production of documentary evidence showing defendants received the June invoices and defendants’ admissions in their answer that they made partial payments for those invoices … .

Plaintiff also established entitlement to summary judgment on its account stated claim with respect to the July invoices. The documentary evidence established that defendant received the July invoices … and the … affidavit established that defendants retained those invoices without making any specific objection to them … . …

… [P]laintiff’s termination does not prohibit its recovery under an account stated theory, and the law firm may recover for pretermination legal services billed to defendants at the agreed upon hourly rate, which defendants retained without objection … . Katsky Korins LLP v Moskovits, 2021 NY Slip Op 05815, First Dept 10-26-21

… [T]he Stephenson affidavit laid a proper foundation for admission as business records of the amendments to the credit card agreement and the monthly billing statements (see CPLR 4518[a] …). However, no evidence that those documents were mailed to the defendant was provided. Stephenson did not attest to [*2]personal knowledge of the mailings or of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed, and the business records did not evince the mailing of the account documents … .

Absent evidence that the billing statements were mailed to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to recover on an account stated … . Similarly, absent evidence that the amendments to the credit card agreement were mailed to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract cause of action … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Ball, 2020 NY Slip Op 06740, Second Dept 11-18-20

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint should have been denied. The invoices do not qualify for CPLR 3213 relief because it is necessary to consult extrinsic evidence aside from the invoices and proof of nonpayment in order for plaintiff to establish its entitlement to summary judgment on its account stated claim … . Plaintiff has failed to establish, based on the invoices themselves, that defendants, as opposed to nonparty Impact Sports, are liable based on an account stated claim.

Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the action based on the statute of frauds (GOL § 5-701[a][2]) as plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that there was new consideration flowing from plaintiff to defendants, which is an exception to the requirement that a promise to pay the debt for another be in writing … . Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC v J&J Sports Agency, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01468, First Dept 3-3-20

​

At trial, the plaintiff established that the defendants received the first invoice and made partial payment on it. While the defendants claim that the number of cases of beer and manner of shipping did not conform with their order, there is no evidence in the record that they raised that objection prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, or that they ever disputed the invoice. Accordingly, the evidence presented at trial warranted a determination in the plaintiff’s favor in the principal sum of $12,345 on the cause of action to recover on an account stated based on the invoice … . Stardom Brands, LLC v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04018, Second Dept 5-22-19

… “[F]ailure to comply with the letter of engagement rule (22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude . . . recovery of legal fees under a theory of account stated” … . The record before us shows that, after receiving the benefit of Carling’s services, Peters invoked the absence of a retainer agreement in an effort to evade her payment obligations, and the court was right to award him the amounts reflected in his bills. Carling v Peters, 2019 NY Slip Op 01713, First Dept 3-12-19