Opinion
January 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
In this dispute over the compensations allegedly due to plaintiff for his services in connection with a real estate transaction, the IAS court previously determined that there were issues of fact as to the intent of the parties precluding a grant of plaintiff's original motion for partial summary judgment. This court affirmed ( 154 A.D.2d 958). Renewal of the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiff did not present any new material facts (see, Bayridge Air Rights v Blitman Constr. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 589, 590). In any event, plaintiff has at most raised additional issues of fact which warrant a trial (see, James v Nestor, 120 A.D.2d 442, 443). The decision and order of this court entered on November 15, 1990 is recalled and vacated.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.