Opinion
March 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Sirkin, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Defendant's counterclaim for legal services provided in connection with plaintiff's divorce does not meet the requirement of CPLR 3016 (f) to "set forth and number * * * the items of [its] claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each." The degree of specificity required by the statute is satisfied if the opposing party is able "to respond in a meaningful way on an item-by-item basis" (Teal, Becker Chiaramonte CPAs v. Sutton, 197 A.D.2d 768; see also, Innis, Pearce Co. v. G.H. Poppenberg, Inc., 213 App. Div. 789). Defendant's itemization of the charges fails to meet that standard. It is undisputed that plaintiff paid over $11,500 on his account, yet the second counterclaim lists all charges on the account and does not identify the unpaid items. Because defendant failed to specify which items were paid for, the counterclaim "did not trigger a duty on the part of [plaintiff] to specifically dispute each item" (B C Smith v. Lake Placid 1980 Olympic Games, 84 A.D.2d 544). Supreme Court erred, therefore, in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on the second counterclaim and in dismissing plaintiff's complaint on the ground that plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim is deficient under CPLR 3016 (f).
We further conclude that, because of the nature of his defense, plaintiff was not required to provide an item-by-item reply to the counterclaim. When a party's defense "goes to the entirety of the parties' dealings rather than to the individual contents of the account, specific denials addressed to the account's items are not required" (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3016:9, at 72, citing Guth Co. v Gurland, 246 App. Div. 67).
Finally, summary judgment should have been denied because plaintiff's affidavit opposing defendant's motion raises questions of fact concerning the reasonable value of the services provided by defendant (see, Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. East Schodack Fuel Contr. Corp., 135 A.D.2d 947, 949; Krouner v Aulisi, 108 A.D.2d 982; Belcher Co. v. Etzkowitz, 90 A.D.2d 783).