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.
Kenneth TERRANO, et al., appellants, v. Phyllis A. FINE, et al., defendants, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered February 26, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant Century 21 Real Estate Corporation pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denied, as academic, their cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The plaintiffs alleged that the respondent could he held vicariously liable for the conduct of the defendant Century 21 American Homes and the defendants Phyllis Fine and Thomas Gallagher (employees of Century 21 American Homes) on an agency theory. However, the respondent presented documentary evidence that no such relationship existed, and that Century 21 American Homes was a mere franchisee over which the respondent lacked the requisite supervision, direction or control (see Tobacco v. North Babylon Fire Dept., 251 A.D.2d 398, 399-400, 674 N.Y.S.2d 125; Andreula v. Steinway Baraqafood Corp., 243 A.D.2d 596, 668 N.Y.S.2d 891; Matter of Sperte v. Shaffer, 111 A.D.2d 856, 858, 490 N.Y.S.2d 592).
The plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint was properly denied as unnecessary. The amended complaint was served as of right within the 20-day period provided by CPLR 3025(a). The service of the amended complaint did not render academic the respondent's motion to dismiss, which was addressed to the merits (see Livadiotakis v. Tzitzikalakis, 302 A.D.2d 369, 370, 753 N.Y.S.2d 898).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 11, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)