Sohayegh Enterprises Corp. v. Gisondi

139 A.D.3d 457, 29 N.Y.S.3d 791
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 10, 2016·No. 1089 162112/14·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourteenth affirmative defense, and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The term of the parties’ exclusive brokerage agreement was 180 days, to be extended for a number of days equal to the number of days the property was under contract. The agreement did not state that “the term of the contract shall be deemed renewed for a specified additional period unless [defendant] . . . gives notice to [plaintiff] ... of [his] intention to terminate the contract at the expiration of such term” (General Obligations Law § 5-903 [2]), and thus does not fall within the ambit of the statute. The term was tolled and thereby extended during the period the sale agreement with the third party was in effect. Further, because the duration of the agreement could be determined from the terms of the agreement, although it was not expressly or specifically stated, the agreement was not of “indefinite” duration and thus was not terminable at will (see Haines v City of New York, 41 NY2d 769, 772 [1977]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Sohayegh Enterprises Corp. v. Gisondi, 139 A.D.3d 457, 29 N.Y.S.3d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

139 A.D.3d 457 (Sohayegh Enterprises Corp. v. Gisondi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 5-903
New York GOB § 5-903