From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breslin Realty Dev. v. Luk-Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06796

Argued March 24, 2003.

April 21, 2003.

In an action to recover a broker's commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered June 14, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Dollinger, Gonski Grossman, Carle Place, N.Y. (Matthew Dollinger of counsel), for respondent.

Piper Rudnick, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Loren H. Brown, Dana C. Lumsden, and Christopher G. Campbell of counsel), for appellants.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). In this regard, questions of fact exist as to whether the defendants affirmatively assumed the obligation to pay the subject broker's commission (see Bank of N.Y., Albany v. Hirschfeld, 37 N.Y.2d 501, 506; cf. Longley-Jones Assoc. v. Ircon Realty Co., 67 N.Y.2d 346; Feinberg Bros. Agency, v. Schornstein, 134 A.D.2d 235).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Breslin Realty Dev. v. Luk-Shop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 21, 2003
304 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Breslin Realty Dev. v. Luk-Shop

Case Details

Full title:BRESLIN REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondent, v. LUK-SHOP, LLC, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 21, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 760

Citing Cases

Corporate Nat'l Rlty., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am.

Further, since the contract documents do not require the landlord to pay commissions, the plaintiffs' claim,…