Pryce v. Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pryce v. Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, Inc.

10 A.D.3d 355, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10134

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 355 (Pryce v. Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, 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

Pryce v. Hamilton, Kane, Martin Enterprises, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 355, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it was the procuring cause of the lease between the defendants (see Philip Winograd, Inc. v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 63 NY2d 837 [1984]; Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]; cf. Dagar Group v Hannaford Bros. Co., 295 AD2d 554, 555 [2002]; Goldstein v Ballirano, 262 AD2d 529 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated March 21, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it was the procuring cause of the lease between the defendants (see Philip Winograd, Inc. v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 63 NY2d 837 [1984]; Greene v Hellman, 51 NY2d 197, 206 [1980]; cf. Dagar Group v Hannaford Bros. Co., 295 AD2d 554, 555 [2002]; Goldstein v Ballirano, 262 AD2d 529 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 355, 780 N.Y.S.2d 294, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryce-v-hamilton-kane-martin-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack