| Castle Oil Corp. v Bokhari |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 05872 [52 AD3d 762] |
| June 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Castle Oil Corporation, Respondent, v Ghazi Bokhari,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael M. Meadvin, Harrison, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for an account stated, thedefendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), enteredJanuary 25, 2007, which, upon an order of the same court dated January 23, 2007, granting theplaintiff's motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of$21,045. The notice of appeal from the order dated January 23, 2007 is deemed to be a notice ofappeal from the judgment entered January 25, 2007 (see CPLR 5512 [a]).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on itsbreach of contract cause of action by tendering admissible evidence that it delivered oil and providedservices to the defendant, for which the defendant did not pay (see Boise Cascade Off. Prods. Corp. v Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., 30 AD3d454 [2006]; Becker v Shore Drugs, 296 AD2d 515 [2002]; Neuman Distribs. vFalak Pharm. Corp., 289 AD2d 310, 311 [2001]; Drug Guild Distribs. v 3-9 Drugs, 277AD2d 197, 198 [2000]). The plaintiff also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law on its cause of action for an account stated by demonstrating that the defendant failed toobject to the invoices that the plaintiff sent to him in the ordinary course of business (see American Express Centurion Bank vWilliams, 24 AD3d 577, 578 [2005]; Casa Redimix Concrete Corp. v MacQuesten Gen. Contr., Inc., 14 AD3d641, 642 [2005]; Neuman Distribs. v Jacobi Med. Ctr., 298 AD2d 568 [2002]). Thedefendant's affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was insufficient to raise a triableissue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; [*2]BoiseCascade Off. Prods. Corp. v Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., 30 AD3d 455; NeumanDistribs. v Jacobi Med. Ctr., 298 AD2d 569; Becker v Shore Drugs, 296 AD2dat 515; Drug Guild Distribs. v 3-9 Drugs, 277 AD2d at 198).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Dickerson andEng, JJ., concur.