Barash v. Baharestani

138 A.D.3d 489, 28 N.Y.S.3d 300
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2016·No. 774 151071/14·Published

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

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

138 A.D.3d 489 (Barash v. Baharestani) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leon v. Martinez
638 N.E.2d 511 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)