Plaintiff law firm established entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for an account stated by production of documentary evidence showing that defendant received and retained the invoice without objection ( see Federal Express Corp. v Federal Jeans, Inc., 14 AD3d 424). Defendant's "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" ( Darby Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315).
Plaintiff also established its claim for quantum meruit by the production of documentary evidence demonstrating the firm's performance of services in connection with the subject transaction, the acceptance of such services, the firm's expectation of payment therefor, and the reasonable value of the services (see e.g. Soumayah v Minnelli, 41 AD3d 390, 391).
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules on retainer agreements ( 22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for the services it provided (see Egnotovich v Katten Muchin Zavis Roseman LLP, 55 AD3d 462, 464; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 63-64).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
[ See 2007 NY Slip Op 32476(U).]