Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo

57 A.D.3d 948, 869 N.Y.2d 789
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8). Construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepting as true all its factual allegations (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; Schlackman v Robin S. Weingast & Assoc., Inc., 18 AD3d 729, 729-730 [2005]; Montes Corp. v Charles Freihofer Baking Co., Inc., 17 AD3d 330 [2005]), the plaintiffs complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against the defendants to recover a brokerage commission (see Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]; Lane — Real Estate Dept. Store v Lawlet Corp., 28 NY2d 36, 42 [1971]; Stanzoni Realty Corp. v Landmark Props. of Suffolk, Ltd., 19 AD3d 582 [2005]; Buck v Cimino, 243 AD2d 681, 684 [1997]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo, 57 A.D.3d 948, 869 N.Y.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

57 A.D.3d 948 (Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union State Bank v. Weiss
65 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Zaffarese v. Iona College
63 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)