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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

57 A.D.3d 948, 869 N.Y.2d 789

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 948 (Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc. v. D'Angelo) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 948, 869 N.Y.2d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplon-belo-associates-inc-v-dangelo-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack