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.
COUNTRY HARBOR REALTY, INC., respondent, v. Daniel SULLIVAN, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover a real estate broker's commission, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones Jr., J.), dated December 17, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Although it is not disputed that the plaintiff was not involved in any of the negotiations that led to the sale, a broker, in order to qualify for a commission, need not necessarily have been involved in the ensuing negotiations or in the completion of the sale” (Buck v. Cimino, 243 A.D.2d 681, 684, 663 N.Y.S.2d 635; see Greene v. Hellman, 51 N.Y.2d 197, 205-206, 433 N.Y.S.2d 75, 412 N.E.2d 1301).
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff created an amicable atmosphere in which negotiations proceeded and generated a chain of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the purchaser's right of first refusal in the initial March 18, 2002, contract of sale, which led to the October 25, 2002, contract of sale. Therefore, the plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment as the procuring cause of the sale, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Dagar Group v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 295 A.D.2d 554, 555, 745 N.Y.S.2d 34; Friedland Realty v. Piazza, 273 A.D.2d 351, 710 N.Y.S.2d 97; Buck v. Cimino, supra at 684-685, 663 N.Y.S.2d 635).
Although the plaintiff's purported cross motion was defective (see CPLR 2215), the Supreme Court had the authority to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the court (see Osborne v. Zornberg, 16 A.D.3d 643, 645, 792 N.Y.S.2d 183; Lacy v. New York City Hous. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 455, 456, 772 N.Y.S.2d 360; Micciche v. Homes by Timbers, 1 A.D.3d 326, 327, 767 N.Y.S.2d 56; CPLR 3212[b] ).
The defendants' 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: November 28, 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)