Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Kasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Kasi

2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 149 (Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Kasi) 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

Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Kasi, 2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faula Omansky, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants Sackman Enterprises, Inc., Chris Galluzo and Carter Sackman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[150]*150The grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the Sackman defendants and Chris Galluzo was proper. Plaintiff real estate broker’s only overture to those defendants respecting the subject property was by means of a “set-up” allegedly faxed to defendant Galluzo in August 1997, and the record affords no nonspeculative basis to conclude that that “setup” was in any way instrumental in bringing about the property’s eventual sale. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faula Omansky, J.), entered October 3, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants Sackman Enterprises, Inc., Chris Galluzo and Carter Sackman for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[150]*150The grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the Sackman defendants and Chris Galluzo was proper. Plaintiff real estate broker’s only overture to those defendants respecting the subject property was by means of a “set-up” allegedly faxed to defendant Galluzo in August 1997, and the record affords no nonspeculative basis to conclude that that “setup” was in any way instrumental in bringing about the property’s eventual sale. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 149, 767 N.Y.S.2d 628, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmsley-spear-inc-v-kasi-nyappdiv-2003.