Colliers Intl. NY LLC v. City Hall Commons LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 33167(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: September 10, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 650032/2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Colliers Intl. NY LLC v City Hall Commons LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33167(U) September 10, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650032/2020 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 650032/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC, MOTION DATE 02/27/2020 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- CITY HALL COMMONS LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 29 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS .

ORDER

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the defendant City Hall Commons,

LLC, to dismiss is denied, and it is further;

ORDERED that the cross motion of plaintiff Collier

International NY LLC, for summary judgment on the complaint herein

is granted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of

$206,924.20, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from September 17, 2019, until the date of the decision and order

on this motion, and thereafter at the statutory rate, as calculated

by the Clerk, together with costs and disbursements to be taxed by

the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs.

650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC vs. CITY HALL COMMONS LLC Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 650032/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

DECISION

In this action, plaintiff Colliers International NY LLC

(“Colliers”) seeks the payment of a brokerage commission arising

out of the renewal of a lease between the defendant, landlord City

Hall Commons LLC (“CHC”) and non-party JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

(“Chase”), tenant, for premises located at 253 Broadway, New York,

New York.

Chase retained Colliers in connection with the lease renewal

and participated in the negotiations. (See e-mail message dated

May 28, 2019 from plaintiff to defendant, with cc: Chase, and

letter dated May 31, 2019 from plaintiff to defendant [NYSCEF

Document Numbers 12 and 13).

On September 17, 2019, Chase and CHC subsequently agreed to

the terms of the lease renewal and both acknowledged by letter-

agreement (the “Renewal Notice”) that Colliers was the sole broker

involved in the transaction, and that CHC would “pay the fees due

to [Colliers] relating to this Renewal Notice pursuant to a

separate agreement.” (NYSCEF Document Number 014, p. 1). In fact,

in support of its dismissal motion, defendant attaches a copy of

the Renewal Notice, which includes a copy of the Commission

Calculation Worksheet. (See NYSCEF Document Number 007, p. 4).

CHC argues that Colliers is not owed any fees because the

Renewal Notice refers to a separate brokerage agreement, which was

never executed by the parties. It is undisputed that Colliers

650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC vs. CITY HALL COMMONS LLC Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 650032/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

sent CHC a brokerage agreement after the renewal was completed,

and that CHC did not execute such brokerage agreement. (NYSCEF

Document Number 15).

CHC further argues that the issue whether Colliers is entitled

to commissions raises a triable issue that precludes summary

judgment, as Collier was more a hinderance than helpful during the

lease renewal negotiations.

The clear representation of CHC to pay Collier’s commissions,

as per the Renewal Notice, and documentary evidence of Collier’s

participation in the lease renewal negotiations entitles Colliers

to summary judgment, as a matter of law. See Newmark & Co. Real

Estate Inc. v 2615 E. 17 St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d 476 (1st Dept

2011).

Newmark involved a lease that provided “that plaintiff was

the exclusive broker for the transaction and that defendant

[landlord] would pay its commission,” id, at p 477. The Newmark

court found that the failure of the parties to execute a brokerage

agreement was not an impediment to enforceability because of the

parties’ communications establishing that: (1) the broker

participated in the lease negotiations, (2) the commissions had

been discussed, (3) the landlord revised the brokerage agreement,

and (4) the landlord never rejected the terms of the unsigned

brokerage agreement. Therefore, the Newark court held that such

650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC vs. CITY HALL COMMONS LLC Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 001

3 of 5 [* 3] INDEX NO. 650032/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

evidence established a “meeting of the minds” as to the

commissions. See Id. at pp. 477-478.

Here, it is undisputed that Colliers participated in the

transaction (NYSCEF Document Numbers 012 and 013), and by the

Renewal Notice, CHC expressly agreed to pay Colliers commissions

earned. The failure of the parties to execute a subsequent

brokerage agreement does not relieve CHC of its obligation to pay

the commissions, as a matter of law. Newmark, id. See also Joseph

P. Day Realty Corp. v Chera, 308 AD2d 148, 152 (1st Dept 2003):

Where a contract of sale or lease agreement admits the broker's performance of services and includes an express promise by the seller to pay the broker's commission, the broker is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for a commission as a third-party beneficiary of the contract or lease.

and Helmsley-Spear, Inc v New York Blood Center, Inc., 257 AD2d

64, 67 (1st Dept 2003).

The record is devoid of any objection by CHC to the

commissions, which were set forth in the Commission Calculation

Worksheet attached to the executed Renewal Notice (NYSCEF Document

Number 007).

Furthermore, CHC’s allegations that Colliers is not entitled

to commissions because it was a hinderance during the negotiations

fail to raise a triable issue of fact that would defeat summary

judgment, as same is merely an effort to “contradict a contractual

admission clear from the instrument itself.” See Helmsley-Spear,

650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC vs. CITY HALL COMMONS LLC Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 001

4 of 5 [* 4] INDEX NO. 650032/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024

Inc., 257 AD2d at 68. The other cases cited by CHC are inapposite

and unavailing.

Colliers is entitled to receive the commissions set forth in

the Renewal Notice. Colliers is entitled to pre-judgment interest

on such commissions at the statutory rate from the date that the

Lease Renewal was signed. See Lee & Assoc. NYC LLC v 1998 Alexander

Karten Annuity Tr., 117 AD3d 514, 515 (1st Dept 2014).

9/10/2024 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

650032/2020 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL NY LLC vs. CITY HALL COMMONS LLC Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 001

5 of 5 [* 5]