Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC v. Oxford Capital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC v. Oxford Capital Corp.

306 A.D.2d 112, 759 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672

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

DecidedJune 12, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 112 (Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC v. Oxford Capital Corp.) 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

Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC v. Oxford Capital Corp., 306 A.D.2d 112, 759 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion for further discovery on the issue of whether plaintiff breached its fiduciary duty to defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documents belatedly provided to defendants raised material issues of fact as to whether plaintiff paid kickbacks to an employee of defendants’ parent company to influence the very transactions for which plaintiff now seeks payment of commissions, and in connection with which plaintiff owed defendant a fiduciary duty as broker, and as to whether plaintiff billed the lessee as well as defendant lessors for commissions on the subject transactions. Nondisclosure of either circumstance would breach plaintiff’s fiduciary duty and would be a complete defense to the claim for commissions (see generally Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc., 96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]; Precision Glass Tinting v Long, 293 AD2d 594 [2002]). That defendants did not include in their motion for summary judgment an affidavit of anyone with personal knowledge is of no moment; counsel’s affirmation was a proper vehicle for the submission of the documents relied upon by defendants (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Dominican Festival & Parade Comm. v Velasquez, 208 AD2d 431 [1994]). The affidavit of Krys Mitkiewicz on behalf of plaintiff does not conclusively negate the inferences raised by these documents. Furthermore, the court correctly found that further discovery on these issues was necessary, since the facts are exclusively within plaintiff’s knowledge (see Berkeley Fed. Bank & Trust v 229 E. 53rd St. Assoc., 242 AD2d 489 [1997]). Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion for further discovery on the issue of whether plaintiff breached its fiduciary duty to defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documents belatedly provided to defendants raised material issues of fact as to whether plaintiff paid kickbacks to an employee of defendants’ parent company to influence the very transactions for which plaintiff now seeks payment of commissions, and in connection with which plaintiff owed defendant a fiduciary duty as broker, and as to whether plaintiff billed the lessee as well as defendant lessors for commissions on the subject transactions. Nondisclosure of either circumstance would breach plaintiff’s fiduciary duty and would be a complete defense to the claim for commissions (see generally Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc., 96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]; Precision Glass Tinting v Long, 293 AD2d 594 [2002]). That defendants did not include in their motion for summary judgment an affidavit of anyone with personal knowledge is of no moment; counsel’s affirmation was a proper vehicle for the submission of the documents relied upon by defendants (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]; Dominican Festival & Parade Comm. v Velasquez, 208 AD2d 431 [1994]). The affidavit of Krys Mitkiewicz on behalf of plaintiff does not conclusively negate the inferences raised by these documents. Furthermore, the court correctly found that further discovery on these issues was necessary, since the facts are exclusively within plaintiff’s knowledge (see Berkeley Fed. Bank & Trust v 229 E. 53rd St. Assoc., 242 AD2d 489 [1997]). Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 112, 759 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-harris-stevens-residential-sales-llc-v-oxford-capital-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack