Barash v. Baharestani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barash v. Baharestani

138 A.D.3d 489, 28 N.Y.S.3d 300

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket774 151071/14

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 489 (Barash v. Baharestani) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barash v. Baharestani, 138 A.D.3d 489, 28 N.Y.S.3d 300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered October 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even when considering plaintiff’s affidavit, which may be *490 considered to remedy pleading defects (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]), plaintiffs own allegations establish that he was a licensed real estate salesperson, not a licensed broker. Therefore, he is barred from demanding compensation for services he rendered in connection with the individual defendant’s purchase of an apartment (see Real Property Law § 442-a).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered October 28, 2014, which granted defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even when considering plaintiff’s affidavit, which may be *490 considered to remedy pleading defects (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]), plaintiffs own allegations establish that he was a licensed real estate salesperson, not a licensed broker. Therefore, he is barred from demanding compensation for services he rendered in connection with the individual defendant’s purchase of an apartment (see Real Property Law § 442-a).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 489, 28 N.Y.S.3d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barash-v-baharestani-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack