From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brixton, Camberwell Poole, Ltd. v. Pressman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1985
114 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 18, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Bobrow leased 158 East 35th Street, New York, New York, to one Manning, who in turn assigned the lease to third-party defendant Herbert J. Farber Associates, Inc. The lease contained an option to buy exercisable in November 1984 which was transferred pursuant to the assignment. Herbert J. Farber, believing he could persuade Bobrow to allow the exercise of the option in early 1984, contacted plaintiff Brixton, Camberwell Poole, Ltd. (Brixton), a real estate brokerage firm, in the summer of 1983, and told them to locate a buyer. Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Pressman were interested in the property and made an offer. Pressman withdrew the offer allegedly after learning the true nature of Farber's interest in the premises. Pressman subsequently contacted Bobrow, negotiated with him directly, and eventually purchased the premises from him.

Brixton brought suit against Pressman and Bobrow, inter alia, on the grounds of fraudulently concealing the purchase of the premises by Pressman from Bobrow, and conspiring to deprive and defraud Brixton of a commission. Pressman brought a third-party action against respondents, which essentially alleges that their misrepresentations as to their interest in the property and availability of the premises for occupancy induced Pressman to deal with Brixton and possibly incur liability for Brixton's commission. Respondents moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term granted the motion. We affirm.

The thrust of the third-party complaint is that respondents' misrepresentations induced Pressman to deal with Brixton to his detriment, in that they may be liable for Brixton's commission. No cause of action exists, since no legally cognizable relationship, either in tort or contract, exists between Pressman and respondents. Thus, the third-party complaint was properly dismissed. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brixton, Camberwell Poole, Ltd. v. Pressman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1985
114 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Brixton, Camberwell Poole, Ltd. v. Pressman

Case Details

Full title:BRIXTON, CAMBERWELL POOLE, LTD., Plaintiff, v. HAYWARD R. PRESSMAN et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)