Interactive Properties Corp. v. Morris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interactive Properties Corp. v. Morris

271 A.D.2d 339, 706 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359

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

DecidedApril 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 339 (Interactive Properties Corp. v. Morris) 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

Interactive Properties Corp. v. Morris, 271 A.D.2d 339, 706 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about March 3, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the record fails to disclose a triable question as to whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the lease or was prevented from becoming such by bad faith, tortious interference or otherwise, the IAS Court appropriately granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 205-206; Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v 150 Broadway N. Y. Assocs., 251 AD2d 185, 186). It is clear that defendant broker Koeppel first introduced defendant Rising Tide Entertainment to the space in question, took Rising Tide to see the space, submitted the latter’s offer to the building owner, negotiated the terms of the lease and otherwise brought about a meeting of the minds between Rising Tide and the owner of the property. In distinction, plaintiff, who was aware that Rising Tide was already dealing with defendant Koeppel with regard to the space in issue, merely escorted representatives of Rising Tide to view the premises for a relatively short visit on one occasion, and, as a matter of law, was in no way the procuring cause of the lease, such that this action is baseless. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about March 3, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the record fails to disclose a triable question as to whether plaintiff was the procuring cause of the lease or was prevented from becoming such by bad faith, tortious interference or otherwise, the IAS Court appropriately granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 205-206; Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v 150 Broadway N. Y. Assocs., 251 AD2d 185, 186). It is clear that defendant broker Koeppel first introduced defendant Rising Tide Entertainment to the space in question, took Rising Tide to see the space, submitted the latter’s offer to the building owner, negotiated the terms of the lease and otherwise brought about a meeting of the minds between Rising Tide and the owner of the property. In distinction, plaintiff, who was aware that Rising Tide was already dealing with defendant Koeppel with regard to the space in issue, merely escorted representatives of Rising Tide to view the premises for a relatively short visit on one occasion, and, as a matter of law, was in no way the procuring cause of the lease, such that this action is baseless. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 339, 706 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interactive-properties-corp-v-morris-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack