Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc., 37 N.Y.2d 151 (1975)
An account stated, unsupported by a written document subscribed by the party to be charged, does not constitute “an instrument for the payment of money only” under CPLR 3213, and therefore does not entitle the moving party to accelerated summary judgment.
Summary
Interman sued R.S.M. to recover payment for silicon slices allegedly delivered pursuant to purchase orders. Interman moved for summary judgment under CPLR 3213, arguing that monthly statements of account constituted instruments for the payment of money only. R.S.M. disputed the quantities and prices of the goods. The Court of Appeals held that an account stated, without a written agreement signed by the defendant, is not an instrument for the payment of money only, and therefore does not qualify for the accelerated summary judgment procedure under CPLR 3213. The court reasoned that CPLR 3213 requires an explicit acknowledgement of indebtedness in a subscribed document to provide a speedy judgment.
Facts
Interman, a silicon material supplier, claimed it delivered silicon slices to R.S.M., a transistor manufacturer, based on purchase orders from April to August 1973. Interman alleged the agreed value was $40,839.94. Interman sent monthly statements of account to R.S.M., requesting notification of any discrepancies. R.S.M. received the statements but allegedly disputed the quantities and pricing, claiming Interman unilaterally raised prices without approval. R.S.M. issued a check for $8,693.15 but stopped payment, citing contract violations, while Interman claimed the check was stopped due to insufficient funds.
Procedural History
Interman served a summons, affidavit, and notice of motion, seeking accelerated summary judgment under CPLR 3213 based on the accounts stated. Special Term denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that an account stated is not an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether an account stated, unsupported by any written document subscribed by the party to be charged, constitutes “an instrument for the payment of money only” entitling the moving party to accelerated summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213?
Holding
No, because an account stated, without a written document subscribed by the defendant, does not constitute “an instrument for the payment of money only” as required by CPLR 3213.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that CPLR 3213 is designed for speedy judgment on presumptively meritorious claims where a formal complaint is superfluous. To qualify, the action must be based on an “instrument for the payment of money only.” The court noted the lack of a clear definition of this term in the statute’s history. The court distinguished prior cases where CPLR 3213 was granted, noting they typically involved commercial paper with a formal, explicit acknowledgement of indebtedness by the party to be charged, such as accepted sight drafts or promissory notes. The court contrasted these with cases where CPLR 3213 was denied, such as actions based on contracts requiring more than a simple promise to pay. The court found the absence of a subscribed written instrument from R.S.M. to be critical. Quoting Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp., the court stated that a prima facie case must be made out by the instrument itself. Because Interman relied on an implied account stated without a written agreement, there was no instrument to establish a prima facie case. The court clarified that even a promissory note evidencing an account stated would be the instrument upon which summary judgment would need to be based. The key factor is that there must be a subscribed instrument demonstrating the obligation to pay.