From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E. Consol. Props., Inc. v. 5 E. 59 Realty Holding Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 19, 2017
146 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-19-2017

EASTERN CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 5 EAST 59 REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, MIP 5 East 59th Street, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Hirschel Law Firm, P.C., Garden City (Daniel Hirschel of counsel), for appellants. Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Douglas A. Gross of counsel), for respondent.


Hirschel Law Firm, P.C., Garden City (Daniel Hirschel of counsel), for appellants.

Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York (Douglas A. Gross of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered September 24, 2015, in favor of plaintiff, against defendant 5 East 59 Realty Holding Company, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 7, 2015, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Contrary to the contentions of defendants 5 East 59 Realty Holding Company, LLC and Alexandros Demetriades, the language of the written commission agreement is unambiguous. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant 5 East 59 Realty Holding expressly agreed to pay plaintiff a fee of 1.75% of the purchase price if plaintiff introduced defendants to the party (and any related entities) that ultimately purchased the property at a closing. Plaintiff introduced Paulo Agnelo Malzoni to defendants. Malzoni was the principal of the ultimate purchaser of the property. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to its fee.

Defendants' argument that plaintiff is not entitled to a fee because it was not the "procuring cause" or "direct and proximate link" for the sale is unavailing, because the parties entered into an agreement that did not make the fee contingent on plaintiff's negotiation of the transaction (see Northeast Gen. Corp. v. Wellington Adv., 82 N.Y.2d 158, 162–163, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1, 624 N.E.2d 129 [1993] ; Matter of TBA Global, LLC v. Fidus Partners, LLC, 132 A.D.3d 195, 205, 15 N.Y.S.3d 769 [1st Dept.2015] ).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, RICHTER, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

E. Consol. Props., Inc. v. 5 E. 59 Realty Holding Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 19, 2017
146 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

E. Consol. Props., Inc. v. 5 E. 59 Realty Holding Co.

Case Details

Full title:EASTERN CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. 5 EAST 59…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 19, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 421
44 N.Y.S.3d 754

Citing Cases

Lewis & Murphy Realty, Inc. v. Colletti

Defendants seek to dismiss the first cause of action on the ground that plaintiff has not pleaded, and cannot…

GCP Capital Grp. v. Greco

It is undisputed that plaintiff so assisted BNDO and that BNDO entered into a renegotiated loan with the…