Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JULIEN J. STUDLEY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVY FASHION CENTER ASSOCIATES, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about November 24, 1998, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The contract pursuant to which plaintiff was retained to broker the sale of certain commercial real estate does not by its terms obligate defendants to pay plaintiff a brokerage commission and, given the existence of an express agreement governing payment of brokerage commissions for the sale of the subject realty, the motion court correctly held that no obligation on the part of defendants to pay plaintiff a commission for the sale of the subject realty might be implied (see, Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. New York News, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 628, 629-630, 518 N.Y.S.2d 779, 512 N.E.2d 300; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 406-407, 113 N.E. 337). Moreover, the brokerage agreement, which was between plaintiff and parties other than defendants, provided that plaintiff was appointed as the exclusive sales agent of those other parties, and referred to defendant Levy Fashion Center Associates as a third party, thereby negating plaintiff's present contention that Levy owes it a commission. In addition, plaintiff's vague assertion that defendants Olmstead Properties, Inc. and 525 Building Co., L.L.C. tortiously interfered with its contractual rights is unsupported by any evidence and contradicted by the record (see, NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 614, 621, 641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 664 N.E.2d 492).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 04, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)