From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Susan v. Steele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 2009
61 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 334.

April 16, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered October 9, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from in this action to recover a real estate broker's commission, denied defendant-appellant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Stephan Garber, Garden City, for appellant.

Daniel A. Eigerman, New York, for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Nardelli, Catterson, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.


Appellant made out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. He established that no triable issue of fact exists as to whether he tortiously interfered with plaintiffs alleged agreement with codefendant Norman Steele to serve as the cobroker for the sale of the apartment at issue. In any event, we note that the elements of tortious interference with contract were not sufficiently pleaded in the complaint with respect to appellant ( see generally Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424). There was no allegation that appellant intentionally procured the cobroker's alleged breach of the contract to pay a commission to plaintiff.

[ See 2008 NY Slip Op 32783(U).]


Summaries of

Susan v. Steele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 2009
61 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Susan v. Steele

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN D. FINE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Respondent, v. NORMAN STEELE et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

Citations

61 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2891
875 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

Susan D. Fine Enter., LLC v. Steele

The complaint was previously dismissed as against defendant Vincent Polimeni, the purchaser of the apartment…

Leech v. Weinstein Co.

induce another to commit a breach of contract with a third person under the rule stated in this Section when…