Bridges v. Platzner Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridges v. Platzner Management Co.

138 A.D.2d 555, 526 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3158

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.2d 555 (Bridges v. Platzner Management Co.) 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

Bridges v. Platzner Management Co., 138 A.D.2d 555, 526 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In two separate actions, seeking, inter alia, to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiff (1) appeals in action No. 1 (index No. 18815/85) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), entered February 4, 1987, which granted the motion by the defendants for summary judgment and a cross motion by the third-party defendants for the same relief, and (2) purports to appeal in action No. 2 (index No. 19932/86) from an order of the same court, also entered February 4, 1987, which granted the respective motion and cross motion by the defendants therein to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order entered February 4, 1987, in action No. 1 is affirmed; and it is further,

[556]*556Ordered that the appeal from the order entered February 4, 1987, in action No. 2 is dismissed, as no notice of appeal from that order appears in the record on appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants-respondents and third-party defendants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a contractual agreement between himself and the defendants (see, Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, rearg denied 70 NY2d 748). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In two separate actions, seeking, inter alia, to recover a brokerage commission, the plaintiff (1) appeals in action No. 1 (index No. 18815/85) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), entered February 4, 1987, which granted the motion by the defendants for summary judgment and a cross motion by the third-party defendants for the same relief, and (2) purports to appeal in action No. 2 (index No. 19932/86) from an order of the same court, also entered February 4, 1987, which granted the respective motion and cross motion by the defendants therein to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order entered February 4, 1987, in action No. 1 is affirmed; and it is further,

[556]*556Ordered that the appeal from the order entered February 4, 1987, in action No. 2 is dismissed, as no notice of appeal from that order appears in the record on appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants-respondents and third-party defendants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a contractual agreement between himself and the defendants (see, Julien J. Studley, Inc. v New York News, 70 NY2d 628, rearg denied 70 NY2d 748). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 555, 526 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-platzner-management-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack