Opinion
March 3, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
The individual defendant does not contest his receipt of a bill, dated June 7, 1995, for the outstanding balance due to plaintiff law firm. Nor, contrary to his argument, did the individual defendant object to the account stated in that bill when he subsequently wrote plaintiff law firm to arrange terms for the bill's payment. We see no reason to except the individual defendant's conduct with respect to the subject bill from the off-stated rule that generally "receipt and retention of [an obligee's] accounts, without objection within a reasonable time, and agreement to pay a portion of the indebtedness, [gives] rise to an actionable account stated, thereby entitling [the obligee] to summary judgment in its favor" ( Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v. Edelman, 160 A.D.2d 626; see also, Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v. Neuman, 93 A.D.2d 745, 746; Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman Lowell v. Petrides, 80 A.D.2d 781, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 1028).
Respecting the individual defendant's liability for amounts billed by plaintiff for services to the corporate defendant, we note that the corporate defendant's liability has been established by a judgment entered on default and that the individual defendant does not dispute that he guaranteed payment of the corporate defendant's obligations to plaintiff. The individual defendant may not avoid his obligation pursuant to his guarantee by claiming that he is neither an officer nor a shareholder of the corporate defendant. Defendant's obligation by reason of his guarantee remains regardless of the nature of his involvement, if any, with the corporate defendant ( cf., Walcutt v. Clevite Corp., 13 N.Y.2d 48).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.