Opinion
570394/03.
Decided May 25, 2005.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered March 11, 2004 (Eileen A. Rakower, J.) which denied its motion for partial summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated and for dismissal of defendant's counterclaim.
Order entered March 11, 2004 (Eileen A. Rakower, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
The court properly denied the plaintiff law firm's motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated. Triable issues exist as to whether a portion of the legal fees reflected on the single billing statement relied upon by plaintiff were authorized ( see Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft v. Klear, 303 AD2d 204) and as to whether defendant attempted to contact plaintiff to protest the bill ( see Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, L.L.P. v. L.B. Russell Chem., 246 AD2d 479). Nor is the defendant's legal malpractice counterclaim susceptible to summary dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the basis of documentary evidence.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.