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.
Joseph FISCHER, appellant, v. RWSP REALTY, LLC, d/b/a Prudential Rand Realty, et al., respondents.
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.
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 Foundation v. S & F Towing Serv. of Staten Is., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 499, 501, 819 N.Y.S.2d 765). “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 [internal citations omitted]” (Shapiro v. Shapiro, 151 A.D.2d 559, 560-561, 542 N.Y.S.2d 339). 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[3][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 A.D.3d 899, 900, 842 N.Y.S.2d 32).
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: June 16, 2009
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)