Contrary to appellants' assertion, their receipt and retention of defendants' invoices, seeking payment for services rendered in preparing certain structural engineering documents relating to Rockefeller Center, without objection within a reasonable time, gave rise to an actionable account stated, thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment in their favor (Interman Indus. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power, 37 N.Y.2d 151; Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Cohen v Neuman, 93 A.D.2d 745; Fink, Weinberger, Fredman, Berman Lowell v Petrides, 80 A.D.2d 781, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 1028). In that regard, the record herein reveals that appellants did not contest the accuracy of the invoices in question or the quality of defendants' engineering work, but rather merely withheld payment based upon an unrelated dispute between the parties concerning ownership of the underlying engineering documents. Accordingly, the IAS court appropriately granted summary judgment in defendants' favor based upon an account stated. However, the entry of judgment should be held in abeyance pending resolution of the remaining claims involved herein (CPLR 3212 [e] [2]).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.