Opinion
June 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff since it proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues of fact existed, and the defendant's papers in opposition were insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In particular, the defendant failed to rebut the inference that it agreed with the subject account by virtue of its neglecting to raise any objection to the accuracy of the account rendered within a reasonable amount of time (see, Jim-Mar Corp. v. Aquatic Constr., 195 A.D.2d 868; Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v. Edelman, 160 A.D.2d 626; Haughton Training Stables v. Miriam Farms, 118 A.D.2d 639). Moreover, in this case, prejudgment interest was properly calculated from the date of the unpaid invoices (see, CPLR 5001 [b]). Mangano, P.J., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.