Opinion
2013-06-6
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. ALMAH LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, New York (Kevin J. Nash of counsel), for appellant. Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Mary E. Flynn of counsel), for respondents.
Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP, New York (Kevin J. Nash of counsel), for appellant. Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Mary E. Flynn of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered September 18, 2012, awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $3,131,897, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered August 6, 2012, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly found, based on plaintiff partnership's unchallenged evidence, that it held a real estate broker's license at the time its services were rendered and its cause of action for commissions arose in 1998 (Real Property Law § 442–d). We decline to consider defendant's argument raised for the first time in a surreply that, even if arguendo the date for requiring a license was plaintiff partnership's May 2008 deadline for giving notice that it would not be exercising its option to terminate the lease early, the license held by a partner at that time did not satisfy the partnership's licensing requirement ( see Ostrov v. Rozbruch, 91 A.D.3d 147, 155, 936 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1st Dept. 2012] ). The obligation to pay the commission arose from the lease ( cf. Thorne Real Estate v. Nezelek, 100 A.D.2d 651, 652, 473 N.Y.S.2d 82 [3rd Dept. 1984] ), which plaintiff partnership was entitled to enforce ( see Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v. Chera, 308 A.D.2d 148, 152, 762 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.