Opinion
November 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment pursuant to CPLR 3016 (f) as the papers submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment suffice to controvert plaintiff's right to summary judgment (Belcher Co. v. Etzkowitz, 90 A.D.2d 783; Slavenburg Corp. v. Rudes, 86 A.D.2d 517, 518). Nor has plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating a right to judgment as a matter of law on an account stated theory in light of the asserted voluntary reductions and discrepancies between the annexed invoices and the amount demanded (see, Santora McKay v. Mazzella, 182 A.D.2d 572; Law Firm of Ira H. Leibowitz, Lasky Peterson v. Sikowitz, 129 A.D.2d 774; see also, Peterson v. IBJ Schroder Bank Trust Co., 172 A.D.2d 165).
We have considered the additional arguments raised by plaintiff and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.