From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller v. Hannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 29, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, J. Herbert Muller, paid the defendant $96,500 pursuant to a commission agreement in connection with the sale of certain properties that are located in Manhattan. The plaintiff contends that the defendant fraudulently represented herself to be a real estate broker in order to procure a commission in violation of Real Property Law § 442-a.

The plaintiff's first cause of action alleges fraud. The three remaining causes of action are based on a violation of Real Property Law § 442-a, which precludes a real estate salesperson from receiving compensation of any kind from anyone other than a licensed real estate broker. The defendant claims that the so-called commission was purely gratuitous and that she never held herself out to be a real estate salesperson or broker. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fraud cause of action and, on its own motion, dismissed the remaining causes of action as barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

The causes of action based on Real Property Law § 442-a were properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 214 (2), which provides for a three-year Statute of Limitations in an action to recover upon a liability imposed by statute. Although in some cases causes of action for money had and received are subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations ( see, Board of Educ. v. Jones, 205 A.D.2d 486; Board of Educ. v Rettaliata, 192 A.D.2d 569), the dismissed causes of action were clearly based on Real Property Law § 442-a, which imposes a liability that does not exist but for the statute ( see, Hartnett v New York City Tr. Auth., 86 N.Y.2d 438; Mem of Brooklyn Real Estate Board, Bill Jacket, L 1922, ch 672).

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fraud cause of action was properly denied because the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not conclusively prove that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented herself to the plaintiff. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Muller v. Hannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 1996
223 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Muller v. Hannon

Case Details

Full title:J. HERBERT MULLER, Appellant, v. MARIAN HANNON, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 693 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 433

Citing Cases

In re Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.

Debtors' pension plan and Bidermann's principal place of business was in New York. The Claimants, on the…