From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robert Half Intnl., Inc. v. Retrack USA Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 3, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action based on an account stated and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of a judgment in the plaintiff's favor on that cause of action.

The Supreme Court properly determined, inferentially, that the "Conditions of Assignment" set forth on the time sheets signed by the defendant did not estop the defendant from claiming an oral modification of the hourly billing rate for the temporary worker provided to the defendant by the plaintiff, as the Conditions of Assignment specifically permitted an oral modification of the hourly billing rate (see, MHA, Inc. v. Consulting for Architects, 244 A.D.2d 169, 170; cf., Half Intl. v. Jack Valentine, Inc., 157 Misc.2d 318).

Nonetheless, the defendant's opposing affidavit was insufficient to raise any triable issue of fact on the plaintiff's cause of action based on an account stated, as it failed to set forth evidentiary details such as when, where, or by whom the alleged oral modification was made, or the substance of that conversation and the alleged modified hourly rate (see, Dehn v. Kaplan, 131 A.D.2d 535, 536; Apache-Beals Corp. v. International Adjusters, 59 A.D.2d 1032, 1033, affd 46 N.Y.2d 888). As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action based on an account stated (see, Epstein v. Turecamo, 258 A.D.2d 502; Sullivan v. REJ Corp., 255 A.D.2d 308; Percy Assocs. v. Collura, 239 A.D.2d 650).

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Robert Half Intnl., Inc. v. Retrack USA Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 3, 1999
261 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Robert Half Intnl., Inc. v. Retrack USA Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, v. RETRACK USA INCORPORATED…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 3, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 513

Citing Cases

Metropolitan Steel Indus., Inc. v. Perini Corp.

As such, the affidavits are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Conclusory affidavits purporting to…

Melrose Credit Union v. Matatov

The defendants failed to set forth evidentiary details such as when, where, or by whom the alleged oral…