While Puritan claims that it made repeated oral objections to the invoices in question, specific written objections are lacking, and no written waivers have been produced ( see, Appel Corp. v. Crocker Commercial Servs., 146 A.D.2d at 472;see also, Congress Talcott Corp. v. Damino Accessories, 166 A.D.2d 152, 153). Unlike James Talcott, Inc. v. United States Tel. Co. (52 A.D.2d 197), upon which Puritan relies, McFadyen did not waive its right to insist upon timely written objections by accepting and acting upon Puritan's oral objections. To the contrary, the record reveals that McFadyen insisted upon payment in full.

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.