Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP v City of Mount Vernon

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP v City of Mount Vernon 2013 NY Slip Op 05624 Decided on August 14, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on August 14, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-10291
(Index No. 4836/10)

[*1]Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, respondent,

v

City of Mount Vernon, appellant.




Nichelle A. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, Mount Vernon, N.Y.
(Hina Sherwani and Daniel P. Harvey of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White
Plains, N.Y. (Robert A. Spolzino and
Joanna M. Topping of counsel),
respondent pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered October 26, 2011, which, upon an order of the same court entered September 27, 2011, granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $55,760.89.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a law firm, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action to recover on an account stated for legal fees by submitting evidence that the defendant received and retained, without objection, the invoices that the plaintiff sent to it seeking payment for professional services rendered, setting forth the billable hours expended, and identifying the services rendered (see Law Offs. of Clifford G. Kleinbaum v Shurkin, 88 AD3d 659; Pryor & Mandelup, LLP v Sabbeth, 82 AD3d 731, 732; Thaler & Gertler v Weitzman, 282 AD2d 522). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315; Lapidus & Assoc., LLP v Elizabeth St., Inc., 92 AD3d 405, 405-406; Mintz & Gold, LLP v Hart, 48 AD3d 526).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court