Sylvan Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Mutual of America Life Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sylvan Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Mutual of America Life Insurance Company

221 A.D.2d 239, 633 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12085

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 21, 1995·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 7, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to the extent it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint but denied that part seeking costs and attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant.

There was no agreement pursuant to which defendant would be obligated to pay plaintiff a commission for assisting it in relocating its headquarters. Plaintiff had merely introduced defendant to the subject building in 1989 in an attempt to negotiate a lease, but the deal did not materialize. Plaintiff took no part in the ultimate negotiations or procurement of the sale of the property in 1991-1992. Therefore, the IAS Court properly dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract (see, Gabrielli v Cornazzani, 135 AD2d 340).

The court also properly dismissed the fraud cause of action as there was neither a contractual nor fiduciary relationship between the parties. Defendant had no duty to inform plaintiff of its subsequent decision to purchase the building (see, Yerushalmi v Monroe, 185 AD2d 841, 842). Plaintiffs naked allegations of defendant’s "bad faith” lack any evidentiary support and are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Denial of defendant’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) and (2) was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 7, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to the extent it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint but denied that part seeking costs and attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs to defendant.

There was no agreement pursuant to which defendant would be obligated to pay plaintiff a commission for assisting it in relocating its headquarters. Plaintiff had merely introduced defendant to the subject building in 1989 in an attempt to negotiate a lease, but the deal did not materialize. Plaintiff took no part in the ultimate negotiations or procurement of the sale of the property in 1991-1992. Therefore, the IAS Court properly dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract (see, Gabrielli v Cornazzani, 135 AD2d 340).

The court also properly dismissed the fraud cause of action as there was neither a contractual nor fiduciary relationship between the parties. Defendant had no duty to inform plaintiff of its subsequent decision to purchase the building (see, Yerushalmi v Monroe, 185 AD2d 841, 842). Plaintiffs naked allegations of defendant’s "bad faith” lack any evidentiary support and are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Denial of defendant’s request for costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1) and (2) was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Sylvan Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Mutual of America Life Insurance Company, 221 A.D.2d 239, 633 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

221 A.D.2d 239 (Sylvan Lawrence Company, Inc. v. Mutual of America Life Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related