Opinion
686
April 3, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2002, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Ryan S. Goldstein, for plaintiff-appellant.
Anton J. Borovina Joel J. Spector, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.
Plaintiff failed to show that she was the "procuring cause" of the sale of the apartment so as to earn a real estate brokerage commission (see Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205-06; Loeb Partners Realty v. Sears Assoc., 288 A.D.2d 110). Moreover, any ambiguities in the fee agreement drawn by plaintiff must be construed against her (see Garrick-Aug Assoc. Store Leasing v. Wein, 271 A.D.2d 344). Since the agreement contained no specified duration, a "reasonable duration" was implied by the court (see Hampton Realty v. Conklin, 220 A.D.2d 385, 387, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 805). There was no basis to imply a term of duration any longer than the one year fixed by the court.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.