B&H Associates of New York LLC v. Ackerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

B&H Associates of New York LLC v. Ackerman

103 A.D.3d 517, 959 N.Y.S.2d 433

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 517 (B&H Associates of New York LLC v. Ackerman) 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

B&H Associates of New York LLC v. Ackerman, 103 A.D.3d 517, 959 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered July 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The provision of the parties’ April 25, 2007 letter agreement requiring plaintiff brokerage firm to pay defendant broker draws based on commissions (plural), which is not limited to any stated period of time, is ambiguous since it is subject to different interpretations (see Feldman v National Westminster Bank, 303 AD2d 271 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]). Defendant also established the existence of triable issues of fact, including whether plaintiff was the first to repudiate this provision of the parties’ agreement.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining claims and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Moskowitz, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered July 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The provision of the parties’ April 25, 2007 letter agreement requiring plaintiff brokerage firm to pay defendant broker draws based on commissions (plural), which is not limited to any stated period of time, is ambiguous since it is subject to different interpretations (see Feldman v National Westminster Bank, 303 AD2d 271 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 505 [2003]). Defendant also established the existence of triable issues of fact, including whether plaintiff was the first to repudiate this provision of the parties’ agreement.

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining claims and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P, Moskowitz, Richter, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 517, 959 N.Y.S.2d 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bh-associates-of-new-york-llc-v-ackerman-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack