Opinion
2005-310 SC.
Decided March 20, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), dated January 5, 2005. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Order unanimously reversed without costs and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and McCABE, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract and an account stated, and alleged that defendant failed to pay for the temporary worker which it provided pursuant to their agreement. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Defendant's owner stated in an affidavit in opposition that defendant's employee no longer had authority to sign the temporary worker's time sheets since said employee switched positions in the company. However, this was never communicated to plaintiff and, as such, defendant's employee had apparent authority to sign the subject time sheets on behalf of defendant ( see McNeilly v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 66 NY 23; Parlato v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 299 AD2d 108; 2A NY Jur 2d, Agency § 41). Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the bald conclusory allegations of defendant's owner, that the subject time sheets were not signed by his employee but were forged and that plaintiff's temporary worker did not work the hours which he claimed to have worked, were insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact ( see Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381). Therefore, the lower court's order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is reversed and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted.