Opinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The trial court properly submitted to the jury both the issue of the existence of an account stated and the issue of whether the defendant could be held personally liable for the debt. Testimony adduced by the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant had made periodic payments on the account without objection and that the defendant's general manager had examined the bills and invoices and found them to be in order created a presumption of the existence of an account stated. The defendant sought to rebut this by submitting evidence of his written objections to certain invoices that he had received (see, Chisholm-Ryder Co. v Sommer Sommer, 70 A.D.2d 429; James Talcott, Inc. v United States Tel. Co., 52 A.D.2d 197, 200-201). The resolution of this factual dispute was a question for the jury.
Furthermore, the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence, consisting of, among other things, a letter agreement signed by the defendant without any indication that he was acting in a representative capacity and two personal checks issued by the defendant in partial payment on the account, to overcome the presumption that the defendant was acting on behalf of a disclosed principal (see, Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 36, 43; RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres v Plaza Pictures, 54 A.D.2d 623).
Given that the jury's verdict is one which reasonable persons could have reached after reviewing the conflicting evidence, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to set aside that verdict (see, Muth v J T Metal Prods. Co., 74 A.D.2d 898, lv dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 745).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.