" Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Sommer Sommer, 70 A.D.2d 429, 421 N.Y.S.2d 455, 457 (4th Dept. 1979). Once an account has been received, that person "`is bound to examine the same, or procure some one to examine it for him; if he admits it to be correct, it becomes a stated account and is binding on both parties — the balance being the debt which may be sued for and recovered at law.'" Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citation omitted). The account stated is enforceable "unless fraud, mistake or other equitable considerations [are] shown."

To establish a prima facie case of reasonableness, the attorney may rely on the "well settled legal principle that an account stated may be established between an attorney and his client." See Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); see also Shea Gould v. Red Apple Cos. Inc. (In re Shea Gould), 198 B.R. 861, 870 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996); Coudert Brothers v. Finalco Group, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 622, 575 N.Y.S.2d 65 (1st Dep't 1991). The theory is that "[i]t is not necessary to 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."

It is incumbent upon the party in receipt of an account "to examine the statement and make all necessary objections" because "an agreement to pay an indebtedness may be implied if a party receiving a statement of account keeps it without objecting to it within a reasonable amount of time unless fraud, mistake or other equitable considerations are shown." Kramer Levin Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v. Neuman, 93 A.D.2d 745, 461 N.Y.S.2d 297, 298-99 (1st Dep't. 1983). "An agreement to pay an indebtedness may also be implied if the debtor makes partial payment. The partial payment is considered acknowledgment of the validity of the account.

Under New York state law, the present case aligns with the doctrine of an account stated. Kramer, Levin, Nessen, and Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 718 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). An "account stated" or "stated account" is "an agreement parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the corrections of the account items and balance due."

The doctrine of account stated relied on by the Reorganized Debtors may be established by way of summary judgment. See, e.g., Kramer Levin Nessen Kamin & Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F.Supp. 714 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Ally & Gargano, Inc. v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp., 615 F.Supp. 426 (S.D.N.Y.1985); In re Shea & Gould, 198 B.R. 861 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996).

The doctrine of account stated relied on by the Reorganized Debtors may be established by way of summary judgment. See, e.g., Kramer Levin Nessen Kamin & Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F.Supp. 714 (S.D.N.Y.1986) ; Ally & Gargano, Inc. v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp., 615 F.Supp. 426 (S.D.N.Y.1985); In re Shea & Gould, 198 B.R. 861 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996).

Def.'s Resp. 56.1 ¶ 25. It simply states that the documents say what they say, and should not be construed to mean that Alpental owes Evolution any money. Even if this declaration could be considered a denial of receipt of all of the bills, an unsupported denial, without anything more is insufficient to raise any issue of fact so as to defeat a motion for summary judgment on an account stated. Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F.Supp. 714, 720–21 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Alpental argues that the complaint fails to state a claim on an account stated theory because Alpental never expressly acknowledged the final statement of account relied upon by Alpental or expressly evinced its intent to pay without objection.

Because defendants did not object to the invoices, they accepted the charges as the fair and reasonable value of plaintiff's services. See Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel c. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (noting that under New York law a court can affirm "a grant of summary judgment in an action by an attorney who sued in quantum meruit for legal services rendered to a client, where the client denied neither hiring the attorney nor the attorneys performing services, but merely denied knowledge of the extent of the attorney's services or their value."). Plaintiff has shown as a matter of law that defendants are liable to plaintiff for unpaid legal fees incurred prior to and including January 17, 1994.

In addressing BRBI's motion for summary judgment, the court rules that it is well established that where an attorney demonstrates that a bill was issued to a client and held by him or her without objection for a reasonable period of time, an account stated is established ( see O'Connell Aronowitz v. Gullo, 229 AD2d 637, 638; Shea Gould v. Burr, 194 AD2d 369, 371). In addition, "[a]n agreement to pay an indebtedness may also be implied if the debtor makes partial payment" ( Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F Supp 714, 719 [SD NY 1986]). BRBI argues that with regard to its legal services and disbursements in the Bruno Magli Action, the Stockholders' Derivative Action, and the Defamation Action, it has established an account stated because it regularly sent invoices for the work it performed, Zelmanovitch never timely protested these invoices, and partial payment was made on these bills.

"An account stated is 'an agreement between the parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the separate items composing the account and the balance due, if any, in favor of one party or the other."' Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel v. Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Chisholm-Ryder Co., Inc. v. Sommer & Sommer, 70 A.D.2d 429, 431 (4th Dep't 1979)). Under the account stated doctrine, "'where an account is made up and rendered, he who receives it is bound to examine the same, or procure some one to examine it for him; if he admits it to be correct, it becomes a stated account and is binding on both parties—the balance being the debt which may be sued for and recovered at law.'"