Opinion
February 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Malloy, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 29, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Tedaldi v Lerner, 172 A.D.2d 603); and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered December 5, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to an alleged oral agreement entered into on August 14, 1989, the plaintiff seeks to recover a commission for its services rendered in connection with procuring a buyer for certain grocery stores and real property owned and operated by the appellants. The appellants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and that recovery was barred by the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]) was denied.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the contract in question need not have been in writing since the plaintiff is a licensed real estate broker and is expressly exempt from the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]; see, e.g., Blake-Veeder Realty v Crayford, 110 A.D.2d 1007, 1008). Thus, neither recovery of damages for breach of contract, nor in quantum meruit, was precluded by the absence of a signed writing evidencing the parties' agreement (see generally, Minichiello v Royal Bus. Funds Corp., 18 N.Y.2d 521, cert denied 389 U.S. 820; Gilman v Hilfiger, 169 A.D.2d 485; Newman v Crazy Eddie, Inc., 119 A.D.2d 738).
We further find that a cause of action sounding in breach of contract was sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see, Siegel, N Y Prac § 265 [2d ed]). Moreover, summary judgment was properly denied in this case since the appellants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through evidence eliminating any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court, or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and Copertino, JJ., concur.