Opinion
2011-12-6
1911 RICHMOND AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, appellant, v. G.L.G. CAPITOL, LLC, et al., respondents.
Thomas J. Devito, Staten Island, N.Y. (Thomas J. Devito, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Rosabianca & Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Jeremy Panzella of counsel), for respondents.
Thomas J. Devito, Staten Island, N.Y. (Thomas J. Devito, Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Rosabianca & Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Jeremy Panzella of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for breach of two leases, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated April 30, 2010, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant J.P. Turner & Co., LLC.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of two leases for the rental of commercial office space. The defendants demonstrated the prima facie entitlement of the defendant J.P. Turner & Co., LLC (hereinafter Turner), to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it by proffering evidence that Turner was not a party to the leases at issue in this case and thus owed no contractual duty to the plaintiff ( see Black Car & Livery Ins., Inc. v. H & W Brokerage, Inc., 28 A.D.3d 595, 596, 813 N.Y.S.2d 751; Lipton v. Unumprovident Corp., 10 A.D.3d 703, 706, 783 N.Y.S.2d 601; Blank v. Noumair, 239 A.D.2d 534, 658 N.Y.S.2d 88). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the signatory tenant entered into the lease as an agent of Turner ( see Hampton Living v. Carltun on the Park, 286 A.D.2d 664, 665, 729 N.Y.S.2d 773; c.f. G.K. Alan Assoc. Inc. v. Lazzari, 66 A.D.3d 830, 833, 887 N.Y.S.2d 233), or whether the plaintiff signed the lease in reliance on the signatory tenant's apparent authority to act on behalf of Turner ( see Hallock v. State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 231, 485 N.Y.S.2d 510, 474 N.E.2d 1178; *900 ER Holdings, LLC v. 122 W.P.R. Corp., 65 A.D.3d 1275, 1277, 887 N.Y.S.2d 138). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Turner.
In light of this determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.