Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 31, 2012, which, upon reargument, denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 31, 2012, reversed, without costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $6,778.00 is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff law firm's moving papers below demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment on its account stated cause of action by showing that it represented the individual defendant in a collection action, mailed him billing invoices, and that defendant received and retained the invoices without objection (see Stephanie R. Cooper, PC v Robert, 78 AD3d 572, 573 [2010]; Berkman Bottger & Rodd, LLP v Moriarty, 58 AD3d 539 [2009]; Shea & Gould v Burr, 194 AD2d 369 [1993]). In opposition, defendant did not deny his retention without objection of the invoices or otherwise raise a triable issue. Notably absent from defendant's opposing affidavit was any factual recitation tending to support his defense that he was not "personally represented" by plaintiff in the underlying action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: February 26, 2013