Oxford & Simpson, Inc. v. Tambrands, Inc.

217 A.D.2d 607, 630 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7828

This text of 217 A.D.2d 607 (Oxford & Simpson, Inc. v. Tambrands, Inc.) 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
Oxford & Simpson, Inc. v. Tambrands, Inc., 217 A.D.2d 607, 630 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the defendant appeals f rom an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered December 16, 1993, which, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On this record, we find that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by means of evidence eliminating any material issue of fact regarding, inter alia, whether the plaintiff brokerage was a procuring cause of the subject transaction (see, e.g., Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Fidelity Bus. Brokers v Gamaldi, 190 AD2d 709, 710).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Fidelity Business Brokers, Inc. v. Gamaldi
190 A.D.2d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 A.D.2d 607, 630 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxford-simpson-inc-v-tambrands-inc-nyappdiv-1995.