Gerald Syndicate, Inc. v. Kaye Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerald Syndicate, Inc. v. Kaye Realty Associates

187 A.D.2d 389, 589 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 389 (Gerald Syndicate, Inc. v. Kaye Realty Associates) 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

Gerald Syndicate, Inc. v. Kaye Realty Associates, 187 A.D.2d 389, 589 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered February 13, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to its first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that under the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement, defendant is not entitled to commissions for the renewal leases it negotiated with two of plaintiff’s existing tenants (see, Namad v Salomon Inc., 74 NY2d 751). The provision for the payment of commission is limited to "new leases initiated by Agent” provided that the "Agent is the procuring cause of the tenant.” While it is true that the agreement does not expressly address defendant’s negotiation of renewal leases with existing tenants, the failure to address a specific, even foreseeable circumstance does not make the express provision of the agreement ambiguous. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered February 13, 1992, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to its first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that under the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement, defendant is not entitled to commissions for the renewal leases it negotiated with two of plaintiff’s existing tenants (see, Namad v Salomon Inc., 74 NY2d 751). The provision for the payment of commission is limited to "new leases initiated by Agent” provided that the "Agent is the procuring cause of the tenant.” While it is true that the agreement does not expressly address defendant’s negotiation of renewal leases with existing tenants, the failure to address a specific, even foreseeable circumstance does not make the express provision of the agreement ambiguous. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 389, 589 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerald-syndicate-inc-v-kaye-realty-associates-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack