Defendant correctly cites James Talcott, Inc. v. United States Telephone Co., 52 A.D.2d 197, 383 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1st Dep't 1976), for the proposition that summary judgment on an account stated is inappropriate where the debtor has disagreed as to the correct amount due. Distinguishable from the facts here, where Aronoff kept a three year silence, the alleged debtor in Talcott had voiced constant oral complaints to the party seeking to recover on an alleged account stated, and these complaints were often considered and acted upon to adjust the accounts between the parties.

It is well established that "[a]n account stated is an account, balanced and rendered, with an assent to the balance either express or implied" (Abbott, Duncan & Weiner v Ragusa, 214 AD2d 412, 413 [1st Dept 1995], citing Interman Indus. Prods, v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 NY2d 151, 153 [1975]). "[T]he very meaning of an account stated is that the parties have come together and agreed upon the balance of the indebtedness. . so that an action to recover the balance as upon an implied promise of payment may thenceforth be maintained" (Herrick, Feinstein LLP v Stamm, 297 AD2d 477, 478 [1st Dept 2002]; see James Talcott, Inc. v United States Tel. Co., 52 AD2d 197, 200 [1st Dept 1976]). An account stated may arise when a party retains invoices without rejecting them or objecting to them within a reasonable time, evincing an acquiesce to the amount due (see Shaw v Silver, 95 AD3d 416, 416 [1st Dept 2012]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Waters, 13 AD3d 51 [1st Dept 2004]).