Exit Empire Realty v. Zilelian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Exit Empire Realty v. Zilelian

137 A.D.3d 742, 26 N.Y.S.3d 343

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2016

Docket2015-04687

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 742 (Exit Empire Realty v. Zilelian) 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

Exit Empire Realty v. Zilelian, 137 A.D.3d 742, 26 N.Y.S.3d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated December 1, 2014, which denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (Raffaele, J.), dated April 10, *743 2015, which denied its unopposed motion for leave to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 10, 2015, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 1, 2014, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order dated December 1, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission. The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the complaint. No opposition to the motion was filed. The Supreme Court denied the motion and, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The exclusive listing agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was in effect for a six-month period, from July 28, 2012 through midnight on January 28, 2013, and the plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence to establish that the subject property was sold during that six-month period (cf. 6 Hunter Dr. v Stechler, 269 AD2d 382 [2000]). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

However, since there are triable issues of fact on this record, including whether the subject property was sold during the six-month period that the exclusive listing agreement was in effect, the Supreme Court improperly, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Dickerson, J.R, Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated December 1, 2014, which denied its unopposed motion for summary judgment on the complaint and, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court (Raffaele, J.), dated April 10, *743 2015, which denied its unopposed motion for leave to reargue its prior motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 10, 2015, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 1, 2014, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order dated December 1, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission. The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the complaint. No opposition to the motion was filed. The Supreme Court denied the motion and, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The exclusive listing agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was in effect for a six-month period, from July 28, 2012 through midnight on January 28, 2013, and the plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence to establish that the subject property was sold during that six-month period (cf. 6 Hunter Dr. v Stechler, 269 AD2d 382 [2000]). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on the complaint (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

However, since there are triable issues of fact on this record, including whether the subject property was sold during the six-month period that the exclusive listing agreement was in effect, the Supreme Court improperly, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3212 [b]).

Dickerson, J.R, Hall, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 742, 26 N.Y.S.3d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exit-empire-realty-v-zilelian-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack