Hirschfeld Properties, Inc. v. Juliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfeld Properties, Inc. v. Juliano

3 A.D.3d 399, 770 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 406

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 399 (Hirschfeld Properties, Inc. v. Juliano) 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

Hirschfeld Properties, Inc. v. Juliano, 3 A.D.3d 399, 770 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2002, which, in an action to enforce a real estate brokerage agreement, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The writing between the parties on which plaintiff relies does not contemplate payment of plaintiffs commission by defendants, and thus is not a valid real estate brokerage agreement between the parties (see Buck v Cimino, 243 AD2d 681, 684 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 807 [1998]). Absent such, plaintiff must demonstrate that it was the procuring cause of the lease. [400]*400Plaintiff admits that it was not. Indeed, plaintiff did nothing more than submit two pieces of paper to defendants with respect to space that defendants were already discussing with the landlord (cf. id. at 684-685). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams 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 (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2002, which, in an action to enforce a real estate brokerage agreement, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The writing between the parties on which plaintiff relies does not contemplate payment of plaintiffs commission by defendants, and thus is not a valid real estate brokerage agreement between the parties (see Buck v Cimino, 243 AD2d 681, 684 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 807 [1998]). Absent such, plaintiff must demonstrate that it was the procuring cause of the lease. [400]*400Plaintiff admits that it was not. Indeed, plaintiff did nothing more than submit two pieces of paper to defendants with respect to space that defendants were already discussing with the landlord (cf. id. at 684-685). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 399, 770 N.Y.S.2d 714, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-properties-inc-v-juliano-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack