Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
There is an issue of fact as to whether the defendant has valid defenses to the promissory note in issue, including failure of consideration ( see, Lackmann Food Serv. v. E S Vending Co., 125 A.D.2d 366; Pascal v. Tardera, 123 A.D.2d 752). Furthermore, the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the account stated cause of action, as the account stated was vague and cursory ( see, Diamond Golomb v. D'Arc, 140 A.D.2d 183; Breed, Abbott Morgan v. Aberdeen Petroleum Corp., 46 A.D.2d 618), and there is a question of fact as to whether the defendant objected to the account. Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.