From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fischer v. RWSP Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 2008-06718.

June 16, 2009.

In an action, inter alia, to recover a real estate broker's commission, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered June 12, 2008, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of him and against the defendants in the principal sum of only $3,079.80.

Ernest H. Hammer, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Condon Associates, PLLC, Nanuet, N.Y. (Brian K. Condon of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"A trial court, in the exercise of discretion and for sufficient reasons, may allow a party to reopen" his or her case, and supplement the evidence to cure any defects in the evidence that have inadvertently occurred ( Kay Found, v S F Towing Serv. of Staten Is., Inc., 31 AD3d 499, 501). "While it may be appropriate to reopen a case to enable a party to present additional evidence prior to the presentation of the adversary's evidence, an untimely motion to reopen should be denied, especially when such a motion is made after the court rules on the relevant issue, the movant fails to disclose the nature of the omitted evidence and the evidence sought to be introduced is not newly discovered" ( Shapiro v Shapiro, 151 AD2d 559, 560-561 [citations omitted]). Here, the plaintiff gave no explanation for his failure to offer the subject evidence during the trial, but instead waited until after the trial had been completed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to reopen the trial.

The Supreme Court properly found that the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that the plaintiff was not the buyer's agent in the real estate transaction at issue ( see Real Property Law § 443 [c]) and, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled only to a referral fee, and not to a commission.

Since the plaintiff's remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal, we will not consider it ( see Schehr v McEvoy, 43 AD3d 899, 900).


Summaries of

Fischer v. RWSP Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 2009
63 A.D.3d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Fischer v. RWSP Realty

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH FISCHER, Appellant, v. RWSP REALTY, LLC, Doing Business as…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5085
882 N.Y.S.2d 197

Citing Cases

MRI Enterprises, Inc. v. Comprehensive Medical Care

Furthermore, an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the…

Hyatt Ave. Assocs., LLC v. Rahman

The introduction of documents into evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see…