Opinion
January 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Defendant's letters dated June 29 and September 24, 1993 clearly dispute plaintiff's invoices of February through August 1993, and, accordingly, plaintiff's cause of action for account stated should have been dismissed insofar as based thereon ( see, Abbott, Duncan Wiener v. Ragusa, 214 A.D.2d 412). As for plaintiff's other invoices, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant objected thereto, raised by, inter alia, evidence of defendant's oral communications of dissatisfaction and plaintiff's failure to specify on the invoices the billable hours it devoted to the services rendered ( see, Santora McKay v. Mazzella, 182 A.D.2d 572). We agree with the IAS Court that a grouping of contracts analysis results in application of New York law ( see, Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 719), and that the California statute requiring arbitration of attorney fee disputes (Cal Bus Prof Code § 6200 et seq.), assuming it is not inapplicable under its own terms ( see, id., § 6200 [b] [1]), does not represent a countervailing foreign State policy so compelling as to displace otherwise applicable New York law ( see, Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler, Spizz Drogin v. Richardson, 231 A.D.2d 1, 6; cf., Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 84 N.Y.2d 309, 318-319).
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.